Part 5
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Introduction
Population growth and the vital need for energy are among important challenges to be tackled by nations across the globe. Fossil fuels have long been
relied upon to meet the energy demand despite their limited quantity and
environmental problems such as greenhouse gas emission which is broadly
recognized as a worldwide issue encountered when heavy hydrocarbon fuels
are burnt. Moving towards a more sustainable future necessitates harnessing
renewable sources of energy and combining them with non-renewable sources
to create a flexible energy portfolio. However, renewables are not yet ready to
go online because of their high intermittency and some availability limitations.
More extensive research and investigation are warranted until reaching a point
where renewables will be fully able to quench the world’s thirst for energy.
In a large country such as the United States, the need and desire to lessen
dependency on imported conventional energy sources has always been a
point of discussion. According to the United States Energy Information
Administration (USEIA) the country is trending downward in the use of
imported oil, after the peak year of 2005 with showing an export number
greater than import in 2015 for the first time in a long time [1]. Shifting
from conventional sources to the more sustainable renewables requires
substantial time and effort, primarily to ensure that the energy production
from renewables is economically viable [2]. Natural gas, as a candidate for
short and even mid-term energy solutions, has garnered attention of both
energy companies and energy demanding countries. As a light hydrocarbon fuel, natural gas is easily accessible and is dependable which means
unlike some renewable energy sources, natural gas’s performance is not a
function of environmental conditions such as sunlight or wind, nor is this
energy source intermittent. When compared to heavier hydrocarbon fuels,
natural gas emits less harmful by-products when burnt. Hydraulic fracturing can help easing the process of translation from heavy hydrocarbon
fuels to a more sustainable energy resource by producing natural gas. This
technology, however, is not without deficiencies when it comes to protecting the environment.
244
Part 
Hydraulic fracturing is an old technique which has been around for several decades. Extensive use of fracturing in recent years is attributed to
advances in horizontal drilling and the capability of reaching deep target
formations with lower costs. Concerns have been raised on wide-spread
application of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas and other operations
despite of the benefits of this technology [3, 4]. Unique safety and environmental considerations must be taken to mitigate concerns and ensure safe
operations [5]. In particular, little is known about long-term environmental consequences given the relatively short history of extensive horizontal
drilling.
Potential environmental impacts can be classified into three major categories: air, induced seismicity, and water and wastewater. Air pollution
in general is linked to natural gas development activities, including fracturing. For example, a human health risk assessment study by McKenzie
et al. [6] on a gas field in Garfield County, Colorado suggested that people
living at a distance greater than half a mile from the site were in less danger than the ones living at a lesser distance. According to a more recent
study by Moore et al. [7], particulate matters smaller than 2.5 μm in size
(PM2.5) and Nox are found in diesel emissions during preproduction (i.e.
drilling and hydraulic fracturing activities) of unconventional natural gas
production.
Subsurface injection operations normally generate low magnitude
(smaller than 2 in Richter scale) seismic events which are termed as
micro-earthquakes or microseismic [8]. In a few cases of hydrofracking
jobs, seismic events have been felt by nearby residents and the operator has
been forced to stop the injection. In 2011, two seismic events (2.3 and 1.5
magnitude in Richter scale) were recorded close to Blackpool, Lancashire
in the U.K. -- the operator had to halt the fracturing operation in nearby
Bowland Shale formation [9]. Generally, the risk of generating serious
earthquakes as a result of hydraulic fracturing is low when compared to the
deep-well injection process, which shows higher probabilities of observed
larger seismic events [8, 10, 11]. Historically, the oldest injection-induced
seismic events are those of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal waste injection
site in Denver, Colorado [12]. The most recent events were generated in
Youngstown, Ohio [13] and central Oklahoma [14], both in 2011. The
former is also known to be the largest injection-induced event with a 5.6
magnitude [8].
Potential surface water [15, 16] and groundwater contaminations are
caused by either fracturing fluid chemicals or volatile compounds from
deep formations [17–20]. The returned fluid handling and treatment is
another source of possible environmental complications [16, 21–24].
Part 
245
Section 5 includes three chapters: Chapter 5-1 addresses major contributing factors to the safety of hydraulic fracturing. This chapter further
covers analyzing different steps of a typical fracturing job and discussing
root-causes of example incidents and accidents and the public perception.
Post fracturing fluid recovery is the topic of Chapter 5-2 where the fate of
fracturing fluid within the reservoir has been investigated and responsible factors for low recovery of large portions of injected fluid have been
identified. Chapter 5-3 wraps up Section 5 by introducing and numerically
solving a potential groundwater contamination problem in the domain
of hydraulic fracturing where a breach in the well results in solute movement in the adjacent formation and contamination of nearby underground
water resources.
References
1. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2018.
2. Spellman, F., Environmental Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing, CRC Press,
2012.
3. Kargbo, D.M., Wilhelm, R.G., Campbell, D.J., Natural gas plays in the
Marcellus Shale: challenges and potential opportunities. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 44, 15, 5679–84, 2010.
4. USEPA, Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil
and Gas on Drinking Water Resources, 2015.
5. Jabbari, N., Ashayeri, C., Meshkati, N., Leading Safety, Health, and
Environmental Indicators in Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Garden Grove, CA, 27-30 April 2015, 2015.
6. McKenzie, L.M. et al., Human health risk assessment of air emissions from
development of unconventional natural gas resources. Sci. Total Environ.,
424, 79–87, 2012.
7. Moore, C.W. et al., Air Impacts of Increased Natural Gas Acquisition,
Processing, and Use: A Critical Review. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014.
8. Ellsworth, W.L., Science (New York, N.Y.), 341, 6142, 1225942, 2013.
9. Pater, C. De and Baisch, S., Geomechanical study of Bowland Shale seismicity,
2011.
10. Goebel, T. et al., A probabilistic assessment of waste water injection induced
seismicity in central California. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting,
San Francisco, 2014.
11. Aminzadeh, F., Tiwari, A., Walker, R., Correlation between Induced
Seismic Events and Hydraulic Fracturing activities in California. American
Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, 2014.
12. Healy, J. and Rubey, W., The Denver earthquakes. Science (New York, N.Y.),
161, 3848, 1301–1310, 1968.
246
Part 
13. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Preliminary Report on the North Star
1 Class II Injection Well and the Seismic Events in the Youngstown, Ohio, Area,
2012.
14. Holland, A., 2011.
15. Hammer, R. and VanBriesen, J., In fracking’s wake: new rules are needed to
protect our health and environment from contaminated wastewater, Natural
Resources Defense Council, 2012.
16. VanBriesen, J., Wilson, J., Wang, Y., 2014.
17. Osborn, S.G. et al., Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying
gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108,
20, pp.8172–6, 2011.
18. Vengosh, A. et al., The Effects of Shale Gas Exploration and Hydraulic
Fracturing on the Quality of Water Resources in the United States. Procedia
Earth Planet. Sci., 7, pp.863–866, 2013.
19. Llewellyn, G.T. et al., Evaluating a groundwater supply contamination incident attributed to Marcellus Shale gas development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.,
112, 20, pp.6325–6330, 2015.
20. Jabbari, N., Aminzadeh, F., de Barros, F.P.J., Hydraulic fracturing and the
environment: risk assessment for groundwater contamination from well casing failure. Stochastic Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 31, 1527–1542, 2017, doi:
10.1007/s00477-016-1280-0.
21. Gregory, K.B., Vidic, R.D., Dzombak, D.A., Water Management Challenges
Associated with the Production of Shale Gas by Hydraulic Fracturing.
Elements, 7, 3, pp.181–186, 2011.
22. USEPA, Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking
Water Resources, 2012.
23. Gordalla, B.C., Ewers, U., Frimmel, F.H., Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat for groundwater and drinking-water? Environ. Earth Sci., 70, 8,
3875–3893, 2013.
24. Glazer, Y.R. et al., Potential for Using Energy from Flared Gas for On-Site
Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewater Treatment in Texas. Environ. Sci. Technol.
Lett., 1, pp.300–304, 2014.
25. Jabbari, N., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California,
2016, Retrieved from http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/
p15799coll40/id/231045.
12
The Role of Human Factors Considerations
and Safety Culture in the Safety of
Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking)
Jamie Heinecke1, Nima Jabbari2* and Najmedin Meshkati3
1
Senior Student, Daniel J. Epstein, Department of Industrial & Systems
Engineering, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California
2
Ph.D. Candidate, University of Southern California, Sonny Astani Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA
3
Professor, Sonny Astani Department of Civil/Environmental Engineering,
Daniel J. Epstein, Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering,
Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California
Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation method frequently used in oil and gas
operations in order to facilitate the flow movement and increase production in
tight and low permeability formations. Along with horizontal drilling, hydraulic
fracturing has helped the United States in meeting its enormous need for energy.
Despite of the advantages such as boosting economy and energy-independency,
there are potential environmental and safety issues associated which rise many
questions on the future of this technology. More specifically, recent accidents and
incidents have heightened public and industry concerns. This paper addresses
major contributing factors to the safety of fracturing by analyzing different steps
of the operation and providing associated human factors and safety culture considerations. Primary human factor root-causes of three recent fracking accidents
have been analyzed, and recommendations as how to proactively address these
considerations in the entire hydraulic fracturing life-cycle process are proposed.
Keywords: Hydraulic fracturing, fracking, safety, human factors, accident
causation, safety culture
*Corresponding author: jabbari@usc.edu
Fred Aminzadeh (ed.) Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation, (247–270)
© 2019 Scrivener Publishing LLC
247
248
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
12.1 Introduction
The United States currently has access to some of the largest shale oil and gas
reserves in the entire world. “Since 2007, discoveries of unconventional gas
including shale gas have more than doubled the estimate of North American
reserves to 3,000 trillion cubic feet, enough to meet 100 years of demand”
[1]. Shale rock is a unique type of rock formation that lies over a mile below
the surface and contains a significant amount of gas trapped inside tiny
pockets within the rock [2]. Until recently, companies found it difficult to
extract these precious resources using conventional drilling methods.
However, the improvement of hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking)
in recent years, has allowed companies to take advantage of these reserves.
Fracking allows gas to flow to the surface by pumping water under extreme
pressure down into the well in order to fracture the rock formation. The process behind hydraulic fracturing is not entirely new, but became especially
advantageous when combined with another technique called horizontal
drilling. This combination is so effective that according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA), production of natural gas will meet consumption needs by 2019 and 12% of all production will be exported by 2040
[3], as shown in Figure 12.1. In fact, it is primarily due to fracking in the U.S.
that already, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (August
12, 2014), “since March 2008, oil production has increased 58% and
natural-gas output has risen 21%, making the U.S. the world’s largest producer
of both fuels, according to federal and international agency statistics”
40
History
2011
Projections
Net exports, 2040 (12%)
Total production
30
Net imports, 2011 (8%)
Total consumption
20
10
Net imports
0
-10
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Figure 12.1 Total U.S. natural gas production, consumption, and net imports in the
reference case, 1990–2040 (trillion cubic feet) [3].
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 249
(emphasis added); and “jobs directly related to oil and gas production have
nearly doubled in the past 10 years to 697,000, government data shows” [4].
Fracking will become an increasingly important topic of discussion as it
starts to play a larger role in America’s energy future. Human factors consideration should be the foundation of this rapidly growing technology to
ensure that it is implemented correctly in order to minimize the drawbacks
of the fracking process.
The potential benefits of fracking could be enormous for the United
States, but only if executed properly. Due to the increasing pressure to find
alternative energy sources, hydraulic fracturing is being implemented in a
greater capacity than ever before. “In a decade, shale gas has risen from 2
percent of US natural gas production to 37 percent. The US has overtaken
Russia as the world’s largest natural gas producer” [5]. However, such rapid
and enormous growth poses significant safety risks. As companies rush
to capitalize on this opportunity, they tend to over-look many safety and
environmental concerns such as increased seismicity as a result of waste
injection [6] and groundwater contamination [6]. These challenges have
been crucial enough in some cases to make the cities take serious actions to
regulate, monitor, and even halt the fracking operations just like the cases
of Pavillion, Wyoming in 2009 [7] and New York in 2010 [8].
Furthermore, according to the National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) [9], “the oil and gas extraction industry has an annual
occupational fatality rate of 27.5 per 100,000 workers (2003–2009) - more
than seven times higher than the rate for all U.S. workers. The oil and gas
extraction industry employed approximately 435,000 workers in 2010. The
annual occupational fatality rate in this industry is highly variable; this
variation is correlated with the level of drilling activity in the industry.
Fatality rates are higher when there is an increased number of active drilling and workover rigs.” An accident in drilling-related operations, like in
other contexts, can be characterized as “an error with sad consequences”
[10]. Nevertheless, a correct understanding of the root-causes of the aforementioned so-called “error” in terms of instances of human-machine,
human-task, and/or human-organization mismatches can be greatly contributed to its prevention [11–14].
To minimize accidents which could result in fatalities and nonfatal
injuries and the possibility of other negative effects associated with fracking, one must consider the human factors issues involved in each stage of
the process. By examining each stage of hydraulic fracturing, the specific
human factors issues involved in the overall process can be addressed and
ultimately both the safety and the efficiency of the entire system can be
improved.
250
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
As discussed by [15], the fracturing operation is known to have several challenges to the environment and also to the society ranging from
groundwater contamination and air pollution to increasing traffic and
incidents associated. However, the purpose of this paper is to shed light on
the root causes of accidents and to analyze potential risk areas that could
lead to future accidents. This paper does not extensively examine the environmental impacts of fracking, but instead it focuses on the safety of workers and well integrity from a human factors perspective. It will also analyze
the human, technical, and organizational factors that contribute to well
control related issues and worker safety oversight.
12.2 Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing
According to experts, shale gas has the potential to “dramatically alter
the energy supply picture for North America and potentially the world as
other countries are just beginning to determine the extent of their own
unconventional resources” [16]. The United States has the opportunity
to outperform the rest of the world if it can improve fracking techniques
by fixing often overlooked human factors related issues. As the world’s
leader in this technology, the United States would generate an immense
stimulus. Current operations have already shown positive economic
effects on local industries; “the most immediate has been in employment –
more than 1.7m jobs have been created” [5]. Expanding operations will
greatly help a struggling American middle class while easing our energy
dependence and reducing carbon emissions (natural gas is a light hydrocarbon with fewer negative consequences than the heavier hydrocarbons
that are more commonly used for fuel). Despite such potential benefits,
fracking has drawn significant criticism, largely as a result of human factor
issue oversight.
12.3 Common Criticisms
Fracking is not without imperfections and can be improved upon to reduce
the risks associated with the process. Media discussions about fracking
tend to focus on the possibility of long-term risks:
Despite the arguable benefits of fracking, some public health officials,
environmentalists and scientists are not convinced that it is worth the
potential risks. Many groups are concerned over the lack of long-term
research into the effects the chemicals used in hydraulic fracking have
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 251
on the people and environment around it, as well as some grey areas
in industry regulation [16].
The majority of critiques raise concerns over the contamination of fresh
water supplies and argue that, “despite the industry’s claims that hydraulic fracturing is a safe and proven technology […] there have been many allegations
that hydraulic fracturing had led to the contamination of drinking water in
many communities” [2]. Residents in communities located in Wyoming, New
York, and Colorado have insisted that their water tastes and smells abnormal
since fracking began in the local area. In response, fracking companies claim
that it is impossible that contaminants were able to reach the aquifer level
because the fracturing process is thousands of feet away from the water table.
Through numerical simulations it has been shown that in some extreme cases
and rare events, failure in the system may result in contaminating the formation nearby the well and the groundwater aquifer eventually [17].
Critics also claim, in addition to water contamination, that fracking has
caused more earthquakes in the area. However, while fracking does create
seismic activity, “the energy released by rock breaking during shear fracturing has a magnitude about one hundred thousand times smaller than
the magnitude of the slightest ‘felt’ earthquake (magnitude ~3.0) (USGS
calculator)” [18]. The cause of these earthquakes is not the act of drilling
and fracturing, but rather has been traced to the disposal wells used to
store the contaminated flow-back fluid (e.g. [5]). “These wells are located
thousands of feet underground, encased in layers of concrete and usually store the waste from several different wells” [19]. The wells can cause
faults to slip resulting in an earthquake. The Rocky Mountain Arsenal in
Colorado and north-central Arkansas are two well-documented cases in
areas which link fluid injection disposal wells with earthquakes [20]. Both
areas have seen an increase in the size and frequency of earthquakes near
the underground wastewater disposal wells. Only a handful of the thousands of disposal wells have been linked with seismic activity, but because
of the magnitude of this possible risk, new protocols should be established
to deal with the disposal of waste fluid. For example, many companies are
beginning to send their waste to a water treatment facility. Although this is
likely a more expensive option, it seems to provide a promising alternative
to underground disposal wells. Microseismic monitoring and data gathering during the fracturing operation [21], applications of sophisticated
reflection seismology methods [22] and more specifically using real-time
microseismic monitoring accompanied by keep tracking of pore-pressure
changes [15] can play crucial roles in mitigating the issue and in increasing the safety of the hydrofracking operation. Also, in a study done in
252
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
the San Joaquin Basin of California, it has been shown that the seismic
events related to the oil and gas activities can be distinguished from the
natural events using semiology measures such as fractal dimension and
b-value [23].
The final major area of concern for critics is the composition of fracking fluids used to break open the shale formation. Although many critics
argue these fluids include harmful chemicals, “evaluating the relative volumes of the components of a fracturing fluid reveals the relatively small
volume of additives that are present. Overall the concentration of additives in most slickwater fracturing fluids is a relatively consistent 0.5% to
2% with water making up 98% to 99.2%” [24]. However, it is important
to remember when analyzing these percentages that millions of gallons
of water are used in each drilling operation and the long term effects of
what these chemicals will do in the ground is unknown. Furthermore,
the exact composition of the fracking fluid used by each company is
not fully revealed because it is considered proprietary, which causes
additional unease. These risks and benefits of fracking are affected by
operations in each stage and can be improved through human factors
management.
In the end, if these allegations are true, experts say that it is not due to
the scientific fracking technique but instead is a result of human error. This
illustrates the key obstacle fracking must overcome: the science behind
fracking is valid, but in accounting for human factors, it becomes a much
less reliable process that may be prone to significant and costly problems.
Also, it is worthwhile to note that the concerns and worriedness about the
fracturing are important issues to be addressed through communications
with the public media. It, thus, necessitates proactively conducting sessions
and talks on the scientific facts regarding the hydraulic fracturing and try
to stay away from the myths [25–27].
12.4 Different Steps of Hydraulic Fracturing and
Proposed Human Factors Considerations
Hydraulic fracturing operation includes different steps starting from
drilling vertically and horizontally all the way to injection and returning
the fluid from the well. On the other hand, human factor considerations
are vital to any system, but they are especially important when a technique is still being perfected. The improvements made by studying the
human factors of the operation could allow fracking projects to realize
their enormous potential. Figure 12.2 briefly discusses major steps and
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 253
Fracking Steps
Vertical
Drilling
Vertical
Casing
Horizontal
Drilling
Horizontal
Casing
Description
Examples of Human Factors
Considerations1
Well is spudded vertically up to a specified
depth.
Using proper lifting and material handling
techniques.
Human-machine interface
Communications
Monitoring/Supervisory Control
Job hazards (identification & conrol);
PPEs; (”Electricity hit”) [29]
Vertical casing is inserted in place to
function as a barrier to the surrounding
environment.
Standard operating procedures
By reaching the kick-off point, drilling bit
starts deviating from the vertical direction,
creates a bend, and advances in horizontal
direction
Drilling operation and equipment
monitoring
Using proper lifting and handling
techniques.
Human-machine interface
Communications
Monitoring/Supervisory Control
Job hazards (identification & control);
PPEs; (”Electricity hit”) [29]
Horizontal casing is placed after the
horizontal drilling is finished. Horizontal
section in entirely located in the target
formation.
Following cementing standards and
protocols
Information monitoring (”Supervisory
Control”)
Perforation
Horizontal casing is perforated using
electrical charges.
Monitoring/information processing/signal
detection.
Situational awareness
Injection
Fracking slurry is injected through an
injection pipe inside the casing and
formation is cracked.
Ensure the blow-out preventer system
functions properly.
Information processing/monitoring
Decision making
Returning
Waste
Wastewater
Injection
Part of the injected fluid is returned back to
the surface and is temporarily stored onsite. The waste is dumped later on.
Wastewater is injected underground through
a number of deep injection wells.
Ensure waste is handled properly
according to regulations.
Situational awareness and continuous
microseismic monitoring of formation
condition and integrity to avoid
triggering seismic events [5]
Continuous motioning and
characterization of waste health hazards
Standard Operating Procedures/PPEs
Total system comprehension and shared
mental model of the underground
1Will be further discussed in the section of hydraulic fracturing process as well as the section of human factors
Figure 12.2 Hydraulic fracturing steps (inspired from [28]) and related major human factors.
important human factors issues pertained to each step. Safety culture
and its associated elements (or traits) such as organizational leadership,
communication, training, and fatigue management, are cross-cutting
phenomena that potentially affect every single step of the fracturing
operation.
254
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
12.5 Hydraulic Fracturing Process: Drilling
The beginning of the fracking operation involves a drilling stage. In this
stage, a drill bit mounted on the end of a drill pipe creates the well. The
hole extends to a level just below the aquifer zone and a casing (termed as
surface casing) is inserted into the hole. Cement is pumped between the
casing and the hole in order to seal off the wellbore from the freshwater.
This process is continued further down the hole until there are multiple
layers of cement to prevent any leakage into the water supply. When the
drill reaches the appropriate length, it is then drilled horizontally into the
shale formation (as shown by Figure 12.3).
Casing is placed and cement is again pumped the full length of the wellbore. During this drilling process, the drill bit requires maintenance which
is called “tripping pipe.” This is a multiple step job that could be potentially
extremely dangerous for workers.
The first stage of tripping pipes involves setting slips that attach around
the stem of the drill. Generally, there are three workers involved in this
process. The potential hazards of this stage include getting fingers or other
body parts pinched between the slips or slip handles in addition to a risk
of muscle strain due to poor lifting techniques. It is imperative for worker
safety that they are trained to use proper hand placement when handling
the slips and use proper lifting techniques to prevent possible injury [31].
The next stage involves setting the kelly (large hexagonal steel structure) over the hole. During this process there are three identifiable possible
Ground Water Aquifers
Conductor Casing
Surface Casing
Intermediate Casing
Production Casing
Vertical Well
Horizontal Well
500 ft. Radius
Vertical Fractures in Vertical Wells
Producing Formation
Vertical Fractures in Horizontal Well
Figure 12.3 View of vertical and horizontal drilling [30].
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 255
hazards. The first is the possible release of excess drilling mud which can get
on the workers skin or create a slippery floor surface. In order to counter
this, it is important to follow the proper protocol of shutting down the mud
pumps and using a kelly that has a mud saver valve. The second hazard is
the possibility of being struck by slip handles when the drill string is spun.
There are alternative technologies such as a pipe spinner that companies
should consider investing in to increase worker safety. The last hazard is
the possibility of getting struck by the kelly when it is being placed over
the hole. Again, proper training can prevent any incidents of this hazard
occurring [31].
The third stage requires workers to latch elevators onto the pipe to prepare for lifting or lowering the pipe. Potential risks include getting hands
pinched, caught, or being struck by elevators. Supervisors need to make
sure that workers are correctly following latching procedures and elevators
should be inspected and maintained after each use.
Tripping the pipe also requires the worker to climb the oil derrick and
work from an area called the monkeyboard (component 4 of Figure 12.4).
There are numerous hazards to address in this stage. Workers can fall when
they are climbing the ladder or while working from the monkeyboard. It
is very important for the worker to use a climb assist device and to wear
a body harness to protect against falls. They should be wearing the proper
protective clothing including a hard hat, gloves, and safety-toed footwear.
Companies need to ensure that slip-resistant coatings are put on all working surfaces. Additional hazards include getting caught between the pipe
and various objects and being struck by dropped objects. Workers need to
exercise additional caution when work is being done over head and to use
proper hand placement [31].
The next stage involves using a pair of tongs to break out and disconnect
the pipe. Tongs are tools that consist of two long arms that aid in seizing or
holding an object. If these tongs slip or backlash during operations, serious injury could occur to the worker. It is important to implement proper
break out procedure and workers should be outside of the 4 foot tong rotation area (as seen in Figure 12.5). Communication is essential between the
driller and the floor hands that are operating the tongs [31].
The final stage is to rack the pipes. Crew members need to be wary of
getting their hands pinched between pipes or getting feet crushed under a
stand of pipe. It is important for workers to use proper hand positioning
and to properly position their feet away from pipe stands.
The risks in each process described above may be mitigated through
human factors consideration. In the drilling stage, proper training and executing proper lifting and handling techniques will eliminate many risks.
256
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
Drilling Rig Components*
1. Crown Block and Water
Table
2. Catline Boom and Hoist
Line
3. Drilling Line
4. Monkeyboard
5. Traveling Block
6. Top Drive
7. Mast
8. Drill Pipe
9. Doghouse
10. Blowout Preventer
11. Water Tank
12. Electric Cable Tray
13. Engine Generator Sets
14. Fuel Tanks
15. Electric Control House
16. Mud Pump
17. Bulk Mud Components
Storage
18. Mud Pits
19. Reserve Pits
20. Mud Gas Separator
21. Shale Shaker
22. Choke Manifold
23. Pipe Ramp
24. Pipe Racks
25. Accumulator
Equipment used in drilling
Figure 12.4 Drilling rig components [26].
Hazardous
Area
Mouse
Hole
Hole
Center
RADIUS
4 FEET
Caution Area
Figure 12.5 Drilling rig floor hazardous area layout with tong swing radius [31].
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 257
Due to the fracking boom, more and more inexperienced workers are being
hired and put to work without sufficient training. This puts both the workers
and the environment at risk. Companies must invest in thorough training to
keep their workers safe. Such training is also in the company’s best interest
because the reduction of personal hazards improves job performance.
12.6 Hydraulic Fracturing Process: Fluid Injection
The fluid injection stage can begin once the drilling is complete. First, the
casing along the horizontal portion of the well must be perforated. To do
this, a perforating gun is sent down to the desired location and a small
explosive charge is set off using an electrical current. The charge punctures
the well casing and part of the shale rock creating fissures to allow the fracture fluid to enter the rock formation (Figure 12.6).
Fracking fluid consists of roughly 90% water, 9.5% sand, and 0.5%
other chemicals. These “other chemicals” have been a topic of controversy
as well. Although the percentage is small, there are millions of gallons of
fracking fluid being used so the overall impact is significant. This fluid is
pumped under high pressure down into the wellbore creating fissures in
the shale formation. These fissures allow the trapped gas to flow into the
wellbore and up to the surface for capture [32]. Workers insert a plug into
the wellbore and the process is repeated multiple times throughout the
horizontal wellbore, which can be over a mile long. When this is complete,
the plugs are removed and the wastewater is pulled back up to the surface
and stored in open pits until it can be safely disposed of. The sand from
the fracking fluid prevents the fissures in the shale formation from closing,
Perforating
Gun
Cement
Detonation
Cord
Jet
Charge
Casing
Figure 12.6 Components of the well perforation process [30].
Formation
258
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
creating pathways for the gas to continually flow into the wellbore and up
to the surface to be harvested. Each stage of this fracking process presents
a few key human factor issues that must be addressed.
12.7 Fracking Fluid
The first topic that should be addressed from the human factors perspective
is the fracking fluid. Fracking fluid contains powerful chemicals including
hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, and ethylene glycol. However, the real
threat to worker health is the sand. “NIOSH’s recent field studies show
that workers may be exposed to dust with high levels of respirable crystalline silica during hydraulic fracturing. Respirable crystalline silica is the
portion of crystalline silica that is small enough to enter the gas-exchange
regions of the lungs if inhaled; this includes particles with aerodynamic
diameters less than approximately 10 micrometers” [31]. NIOSH findings
indicate that of 116 samples collected, 47% showed silica exposures higher
than the OSHA permissible exposure limit and 79% were above the recommended exposure limit. This exposure to silica is dangerous for workers because “breathing silica can cause silicosis. Silicosis is a lung disease
where lung tissue around trapped silica particles reacts, causing inflammation and scarring and reduces the lungs’ ability to take in oxygen” [33].
Because these workers are forced to breathe silica repeatedly they “are at
a greater risk of developing silicosis. Silica can also cause lung cancer and
has been linked to other diseases, such as tuberculosis, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, and kidney and autoimmune disease” [34]. Some possible solutions to limit the exposure of silica are to limit the distance sand
falls through the air to reduce dust kick up, limit the time spent in high
risk areas, and install a dust collection system on the machines that release
dust. Providing respirators will also help reduce the amount of exposure
the worker’s lungs receive. Proactive measures to protect employees should
be a primary concern for gas companies. Not only is it extremely costly for
companies to cover missed work, medical bills and lawsuits, but they will
also foster greater public support by showing a concern for their workers’
well-being, thereby improving the fracking industry’s reputation.
12.8 Wastewater
The second human factors topic associated with the fracking process is
the flow back wastewater. Flow back fluids contain not only the harsh
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 259
chemicals found in fracking fluids but also other contaminants and naturally occurring radioactive materials from exposure to the shale formation.
The fluid is usually stored in temporary pits or steel tanks until it can be
properly treated or disposed of. Correctly containing these fluids within
a lined pit is especially important for reducing the risk of contaminating
shallow ground water, a common concern among critics:
The failure of a tank, pit liner, or the line carrying fluid (“flowline”)
can result in a release of contaminated materials directly into surface
water and shallow ground water. Environmental clean-up of these
accidentally released materials can be a costly and time consuming
process. Therefore, prevention of releases is vitally important [24].
This stage possesses the highest likelihood of contaminating fresh ground
water due to human error. Luckily, new systems such a closed loop fluid handling systems are being implemented throughout the industry to avoid the
use of open air pits. They work by “keeping fluids within a series of pipes
and tanks throughout the entire fluid storage process. Since fluid is never
in contact with the ground, the likelihood of groundwater contamination is
minimized” [24]. As this stage is the most at risk, there needs to be strict
standards set in place to reduce the risk of any spills due to mishandling or
human errors.
12.9
Human Factors and Safety Culture Considerations
Human factors and safety culture have been implicated as critical contributing factors to major accidents in both up- and down streams in the oil and gas
industry. BP Deepwater Horizon (2010) [35–37] and BP Texas City Refinery
fire and explosion (2005) [38] are among the famous examples of incidents.
Operations of every major step in the aforementioned “Fracking Steps”
on Figure 12.2, which includes Vertical Drilling, Vertical Casing, Horizontal
Drilling, Horizontal Casing, Perforation, Injection, and Returning Waste
are sensitive to and can seriously be compromised by the human factors
and safety culture considerations.
12.9.1
Human Factors
Human factors, or ergonomics, is a scientific field concerned with improving the productivity, health, safety, and comfort of people, as well as the
effective interaction between people, the technology they are using, and
the environment in which both must operate. While both human factors
260
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
and ergonomics are used interchangeably, the term ergonomics is used
when focusing on how work affects people [39]. This concerns issues such
as fatigue due to prolonged monitoring tasks, injuries due to unsafe workstation, and errors due to a confusing console layout.
A straight-forward justification for the need for ergonomic considerations is that the technological systems are being controlled by humans;
therefore, they should be designed with the human operator’s physical and
psychological needs, capabilities and limitations in mind. Ergonomics can
be divided into two related and complementary areas of concentration:
1- microergonomics and 2- macroergonomics. Micro- and macroergonomic
approaches build upon each other and concentrate on the introduction,
integration and utilization of technology, and its interface with the end-user
population. Their overall objective is to improve the safety and efficiency
of the intended technological system [40].
12.9.1.1
Microergonomics
Microergonomics, also called human engineering, addresses the relationship
between human, equipment and physical environment. It is focused on the
human-machine system level and is, for example, concerned with the design
of individual workstations, work methods, tools, control panels and displays.
Microergonomics includes studies of the human body sizes, known as anthropometrics, physical and psychological abilities and limitations, information
processing, and human decision-making and error. It is noteworthy that, in
the context of the control room environment:
“The Human Error Probability (HEP) will be reduced by factors of
2 to 10 if the workstation (display and controls) are improved by the
incorporation of standard human engineering concepts” [41].
Microergonomics aims to reduce incompatibilities between operator abilities and system requirements. The following sample represents additional
areas of microergonomics consideration: Materials Handling, Handtool Design
and Use, Machinery Design, Workstation Design, and Workplace Environment.
12.9.1.2
Macroergonomics
Ergonomics at the macro level, macroergonomics, is focused on the overall
people-technology system level and is concerned with the impact of technological systems on organizational, managerial, and personnel (sub-) systems.
Macroergonomics includes areas such as training, management, the planning process, information systems, internal review/inspection programs,
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 261
performance measurement systems, reward structure, initial employee qualifications assessments, and personnel selection criteria [42]. Additional areas
on which macroergonomics focuses include: Job Analysis, Training,
Communications, Policies and Procedures, and Organizational Design.
12.9.2
Safety Culture
The human factors considerations, although are of great importance to fracking, consist only of necessary conditions for achieving a safe and reliable operation; to make it sufficient, one should take into account safety culture. Safety
culture can be a common mode of failure for such incidents as it plays a vital
role in shaping a complex technological system resiliency, robustness and
defense-in-depth:
“Because of their diversity and redundancies, the defense-in-depth
will be widely distributed throughout the system. As such, they are
only collectively vulnerable to something that is equally widespread.
The most likely candidate is safety culture. It can affect all elements in
a system for good or ill.” [43]
The safe and efficient operation of fracking is a function of the interactions among its human (i.e., personnel and organizational) and engineered
subsystems. More specifically, interactions of its Human, Organizational,
and Technological (i.e., engineered) (HOT) subsystems, within their overall operational milieu – could determine the safety culture [44].
The connection of these three (HOT) subsystems, in the context of the
total system, is represented in Figure 12.7. This simplified and symbolic
demonstration depicts only one critical system’s reality – the role of each
subsystem as a link in a chain – in the integrity of the whole system. It
does not, however, show all the needed subsystems’ interactions and
interrelationships.
The chain metaphor is also helpful in understanding the effects of output
or production load, produced by the system, on its individual subsystems.
Any increase in the output level or the capacity utilization rate imposes
strain on all subsystems.
Obviously, the chain (system) could break down if any link breaks down.
This may occur if either all the links (subsystems) are not equally strong
and designed for handling the additional load, or if they are not adequately
prepared and reinforced to carry the extra load in a sustainable fashion.
Major accidents at complex, large-scale technological systems have been
caused by break downs of the weakest links in this chain, which are most
often the human or organizational subsystems.
262
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
Interactive
Effect
Human
Organization
Technology
Volume of Output
Figure 12.7 Major subsystems of a technological system.
Finally, Safety culture can also be characterized as the “overlay” or direct
result of sound HOT interactions that should have been incorporated
during work system’s design and nurtured and maintained during operation stages. Furthermore, an organization’s safety culture, as a system composed of behaviors, practices, policies, and structural components, cannot
flourish or succeed without interactions and harmony with its environment – the societal or national culture in which the organization which
runs the technological system must operate. In other words, safety culture
should be considered in the context of national culture, which could seriously affect its effectiveness [45, 46].
Creating and nurturing a positive safety culture basically means to
instill thinking and attitudes in organizations and individual employees
that ensure safety issues are treated as high priorities. An organization fostering a safety culture would encourage employees to cultivate a questioning attitude and a rigorous and prudent approach to all aspects of their
job, and would set up necessary open communications between line workers and mid- and upper management. These safety culture characteristics
are equally applicable both to the operating companies as well as to their
cognizant/designated governmental regulatory safety agency.
It is noteworthy that the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
has recently developed a seminal guideline and code of practice for safety
culture in nuclear power industry, Traits of a Healthy Nuclear Safety Culture
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 263
(2013), that could (and should) be adopted and utilized for this purpose by
the fracking industry [47].
12.10 Examples of Recent Incidents
Fracking accidents and incidents can have multiple, complex and interacting causes. However as depicted in the following Figure 12.8, such events
can result into three major categories of losses and adverse consequences:
People-related, Environment-related, and Product/Process-related. The
collective and overall impact of these three types of losses on the system’s
productivity can be attributed to their negative impact on resource utilization; which could be significant, as they simultaneously reduce, lower or
erode the “Output”. In order to compensate for the inefficient utilization
of productive resources which should have gone into the final product, the
“Input” should be increasing. The ultimate result of this vicious cycle, in
the short-term, is low overall fracking “Productivity Ratio” and negative
“Safety, Health, Environmental, Economical, and Social Impacts”. And in
the long-term, depending on the severity of the three types of losses, major
regulatory and/or political ramifications can follow.
Fracking mishaps and accidents
Prevention Strategies
Prevention Strategies
Human-Systems Integration (HSI)
(Human factors considerations,
Situational awareness, Physical and mental
Workload analysis, etc.
Safety culture
Procedures
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
Emergency Operating Procedure
(EOP)
Loss
Engineering: Equipment, Design, Material,
Operation, Maintenance, Hard and soft safety barriers
Regulations
Process/
Product
People
Environment
Loss
Low/
Interruption
/ Water of
production
Incidents
Injuries
Accidents
Loss
Spills, Emissions
Contamination
Unintended
changes in
geological
formations and
stability
Output
Productivity Ratio
=
Input
Final Outcomes
Safety, Health, Environmental, Economical, and Social Impacts
Figure 12.8 Risks/loses and impacts of fracking mishaps and accidents (adapted from [48]).
264
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
As discussed before and is also depicted in Figure 12.8, human factors
and safety culture considerations comprise a major loss prevention strategy
with an overarching effect on people, environment and product/process.
Example 1: Exxon Mobil subsidiary spills wastewater into the
Susquehanna River
Recent reports of fracking issues reveal that many of the problems are not
created by the technical procedure but are a result of human error. In 2010,
the Dallas News reported on a fracking spill outside Pittsburgh where a storage tank was leaking water and chemicals into a nearby river. According to
the article, the XTO Energy Fracking Company that was responsible for the
operation was forced to pay a $100,000 fine and to implement operations
changes that cost nearly $20 million [49]. However, the leak was avoidable
and not an inherent problem of fracking procedures. Irresponsible human
actions caused the leak: “a valve on the storage tank had been left open
and the drainage plug removed,” additionally, “XTO had ordered its water
recycling contractor to another drilling site in West Virginia” [49]. Such
a simple error was extremely costly for this company, yet it was entirely
avoidable. Forcing the water-recycling contractor to move to another
project before the current one was secure represents a human factor error
associated with upper management attempting to maximize profits while
disregarding important safety and oversight concerns.
Example 2: Report cites inadequate management of risks
Poor decision-making by management is not the only possible cause of
human error. As an incident in northern Alberta revealed, worker disregard can have disastrous implications. According to the report, “workers
failed to recognize and properly assess a number of issues that led to the
perforation and fracturing above the base of groundwater protection” [50].
These errors resulted in the crew directly fracking into underground water
table where 42 cubic meters of propane gel entered an aquifer. However,
the company’s response to this incident indicates that such errors were
a result of complete disregard for procedures. The company’s Chief
Operating Officer, Rob Morgan, added, “all of the personnel who were
involved in this particular circumstance are no longer with the company”
[50]. Unfortunately, this drastic incident has fueled criticisms of fracking,
yet it was a result of human error. Accidentally fracking above the aquifer
level is something that should never happen. As shown in Figure 12.9, the
operator missed the pay zone by over 800 meters. Operators need to be
correctly reading the equipment that monitors the depth levels. If lack of
experience of the operator was the issue then the company should evaluate
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 265
~50 meters NE
GL
Deep Monitoring
Well
Accidental
perforations at
136 mMD
500 mMD
177 mm Surface
Casing set to
606 mMD
Base of Ground
Water Protection
600 m
KOP 697 mMD
Previous to incident perforated and
hydraulically fractured intervals
Bridge Plug
1557 mMD
114 mm Production
Casing Set to
2503 mMD
1000 mMD
Planned Perforation
Interval
1486–1486.6 mMD
Figure 12.9 Well cross-section schematic [50].
its training program. The company should also evaluate the monitoring
equipment to ensure that it is ergonomically correct and easy to use. If
equipment is not adjusted to ergonomic standards then the chance for
operator error is much higher.
Example 3: Mud spill in Pennsylvania state forest
Another incident occurred in January 2010 when “an estimated 8,000 gallons to 12,000 gallons of mud used by Anadarko E&P Co. Inc. for drilling
operations over-flowed at the well site due to human error […] [Luckily, the
mud] didn’t spread far enough to contaminate any surface waters, ground
water, or wetlands in the area” [51]. Companies should be investing in additional monitoring equipment to have assurance in each stage of the operation. By breaking down the operation they can evaluate where the problem
areas lie and what they need to do in order to improve their process. Lack of
monitoring equipment in addition to inexperienced operators can be devastating to not only to the company but to the environment as well.
12.11 Conclusion and Recommendations
By understanding and strengthening each of these interrelationships, the
safety of the hydraulic fracturing process can be improved upon. According to
a report released in 2012 by the JRC (Joint Research Centre), human-related
266
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
causes were present in 14% of offshore accidents at the very minimum. It is
likely that human-related causes were present in even more accidents, however, no systematic analysis to identify human/organizational failures were
performed in the other events [52]. It would be reasonable to assume that
onshore fracking accidents have similar numbers if not more.
Fracking has enormous potential for the United States in our quest for
cleaner energy. The economic benefits from this process are something that
even the industry’s stoutest critics have a hard time denying. “Last year, a
group from Yale estimated that shale gas production contributes over $100
billion to U.S. consumers annually. Jobs have been created, many landowners have benefited financially, and lower gas prices have provided relief for
consumers in the form of lower heat and electricity bills. In comparison,
the authors estimated that the cost of ground-water contamination could
be $250 million per year, which is 1/400th the benefit” [53]. However, we
should not settle for the status quo. By strengthening current regulations
and improving human factors and safety culture, we can enhance the safety
of the workers, reduce accidents, and minimize adverse environmental
impact of fracking.
Acknowledgment
Authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Dr. Iraj Ershaghi,
Dr. Donald Paul of University of Southern California (USC), and Dr. Wayne
D. Pennington of Michigan Technological University for their insights and
analyses concerning technical issues affecting the hydraulic fracturing process. This work, however, should not necessarily be construed as their representative position(s).
References
1. S.L. Sakmar, Shale gas developments in North America: An overview of the
regulatory and environmental challenges facing the industry, SPE North
American unconventional gas conference and exhibition, The Woodlands,
Texas. pp. 1, 3, 7 (2011).
2. K. Barillaro, Process of Fracking, http://shalestuff.com/education/fracking/
fracking (2012).
3. J.J. Conti, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated and
International Energy Analysis, Annual energy outlook 2013, http://www.eia.
gov/forecasts/aeo/ (2013).
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 267
4. Democrats warming to the energy industry: Lawmakers weigh benefits of
fracking boom against opposition from environmentalists; some Republicans
are skeptical, Wall Street Journal. p. A4, August 12 (2014).
5. D. Yergin, US energy is changing the world again, Financial Times, http://
www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/b2202a8a-2e57-11e2-8f7a-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2202a8a-2e5711e2-8f7a-00144feabdc0.html?s iteedition=intl&siteedition=intl&_i_referer=.
p. 2. (2012).
6. K.M. Keranen, M. Weingarten, G.A. Abers, B.A. Bekins, and S. Ge, Sharp
increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive
wastewater injection. Science 1255802 (2014).
7. D. DiGiulio, R.T. Wilkin, C. Miller, G. Oberlev. Investigation of ground water
contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming, EPA. (2011).
8. D. Rahm, Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of
Texas. Energy Policy 39(5), 2974–2981 (2011).
9. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Oil and Gas
Extraction, Inputs: Occupational Safety and Health Risks, http://www.cdc.
gov/niosh/programs/ oilgas/risks.html
10. J. Reason, Human Error, p. 162, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
(1992).
11. J. Rasmussen, The definition of human error and a taxonomy for technical system design, in New Technology and Human Error, J. Rasmussen, K.
Duncan, and J. Leplat (Eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. (1987).
12. J. Rasmussen, Human error and the problem of causality in analysis of accidents. Invited paper for Royal Society meeting on Human Factors in High
Risk Situations, 28-29 June, 1989, London, England. (1989).
13. N. Meshkati. Human Factors in Large-Scale Technological Systems’
Accidents: Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl. Ind. Crisis Q 5, 133–154
(1991).
14. N. Meshkati. Where do accidents come from? The critical role of human and
organizational factors in the safety and reliability of technological systems,
Rivista Tecnica dell’ANPAC (Italian Pilots’ Union Technical Publication), 2,
14–16. (2000).
15. M.D. Zoback and A.J. Arent, Shale gas: Development opportunities and challenges, the Bridge, Nat. Acad. Eng. 44(1), (2014).
16. S. Tuthill, Understanding fracking: Arguments for and against natural gas
extraction, http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/fracking-environ
mental-health/17444221. p. 1, (2013).
17. N. Jabbari, F. Aminzadeh, F. de Barros, B. Jafarpour, Hydraulic fracturing and
potential groundwater contamination risk. Presented at the 248th American
Chemical Society National Meeting & Exposition, Paper Number: 315, San
Francisco, CA, 10–14 (2014).
18. K.E. George, Hydraulic fracturing 101, J. Petrol. Technol. April 34–42, (2012).
268
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
19. T. Henry, How oil and gas disposal wells can cause earthquakes, https://
stateimpact. npr.org/texas/tag/earthquake/.p. 1, (2012).
20. S. Horton, Disposal of hydrofracking waste fluid by injection into subsurface
aquifers triggers earthquake swarm in central Arkansas with potential for
damaging earthquake. Seismol. Res. Lett. 83(2), 250–260 (2012).
21. N.R. Warpinski, Understanding Hydraulic Fracture Growth, Effectiveness,
and Safety through Microseismic Monitoring, ISRM International
Conference for Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing. International
Society for Rock Mechanics, (2013).
22. W.D. Pennington, Reservoir geophysics. Geophysics 66(1), 25–30 (2001).
23. F. Aminzadeh, T.H.W. Goebel, Identifying induced seismicity in active tectonic regions: a case study of the San Joaquin Basin, California. AGU Fall
Meeting, Abstract: S31F-06, San Francisco, California. (2013).
24. Frac Focus, Chemical Disclosure Registry, http://fracfocus.org/ (2013).
25. F. Aminzadeh, To Frack or not to Frack. That is the question. Los Angeles
Science Center Series on “Science Matters”, June 8 (2013).
26. N. Jabbari, F. Aminzadeh, F. de Barros, Hydraulic Fracturing, Points and
Counter Points. Urban Water Institute 20th Annual Water Policy Conference
San Diego, CA, August 16 (2013).
27. F. Aminzadeh and D. Paul, Induced Seismicity Intersection of Science,
Public and Regulation, IOGCC Annual Meeting, November 5. Long Beach
California. (2013).
28. I. Ershaghi and Q. Qianru, Aspects of Oilfield Related Accidents. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
(2013).
29. M. Economides and T. Martin, Modern Fracturing: Enhancing Natural Gas
Production, Energy Tribune Publishing Inc., Houston. (2007).
30. American Petroleum Institute, Hydraulic fracturing operations- well construction and integrity guidelines, API Guidance Document HF1, doi:
Product No. GHF101, (2009).
31. OSHA, Oil and gas well drilling and service etool, http://www.osha.gov/
SLTC/etools/oilandgas/index.html (2014).
32. Clean Water Action, Fracking: The process, http://www.cleanwateraction.
org/page/fracking-process (2013).
33. J.A. Merchant, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational respiratory diseases, Publication No. 86-102, p. 266, (1986).
34. F.L. Rice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, Health effects of occupational exposure
to respirable crystalline silica, Publication No. 2002-129.p. 5, (2002).
35. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. Interim
Report on Causes of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig Blowout and Ways to
Prevent Such Events. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. (2010).
The Role of Human Factors Considerations 269
36. I. Ershaghi and D. Luna, Validation process for human factor in complex upstream oil and gas operations. SPE 147654, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, (2011).
37. M. Tabibzadeh and N. Meshkati, Learning from the BP Deepwater Horizon
accident: Risk analysis of human and organizational factors in negative pressure test. Environ. Syst. Decis. 34(2), 194–207 (2014).
38. United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Investigation
Report, Refinery Explosion and Fire, BP Texas City, Texas. Report No. 200504-I-TX. (2007).
39. Eastman Kodak Company. Ergonomic Design for People at Work (Vol. 1),
Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, California. (1983).
40. N. Meshkati, Critical Human and Organizational Factors Considerations
in Design and Operation of Petrochemical Plants. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Health, Safety & Environment in Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), 11-14
November, The Hague, The Netherlands, Volume I, 627–634 (Paper # SPE
23275). (1991).
41. A.D. Swain and H.E. Guttmann, Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis
with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications. Final Report (NUREG/
CR-1278). Washington, D.C. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. pp. 11–15,
(1983).
42. H.W. Hendrick, Macroergonomics: A concept whose time has come. Human
Factors Soc. Bull. 30(2), 1–3, (1987).
43. J.T. Reason, A Life in Error: From Little Slips to Big Disasters. Ashgate,
Burlington, VT, (2013).
44. N. Meshkati, Human factors in process plants and facility design, in CostEffective Risk Assessment for Process Design, R. Deshotels and R. Zimmerman
(Eds.), pp.113, 115, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY. (1995).
45. N. Meshkati, Cultural context of nuclear safety culture: A conceptual
model and field study, in Nuclear Safety: A Human Factors Perspective,
J. Misumi, B. Wilpert, R. Miller (Eds.), pp. 61–75, Taylor and Francis,
London. (1999).
46. M.J. Gelfand, M. Frese, E. Salmon, Cultural influence on errors: Preventions,
Detections, and Management, in Errors in Organizations, D.A. Hofmann and
M. Frese (Eds.), pp. 273–315, Taylor & Francis, Routledge, New York, NY.
(2011).
47. Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Traits of a Healthy Nuclear Safety
Culture. Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. INPO 12-012. http://
pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ ML1303/ML13031A707.pdf. (2013).
48. N. Meshkati, Preventing Accidents and Explosions in the Petroleum
Industry: The Critical Role of Human Factors. Invited plenary presentation
at the First International Congress on Medicine in the Petroleum Industry,
organized by Pemex, the State-owned oil company of Mexico. (1992).
270
Hydraulic Fracturing and Well Stimulation
49. J. Osborne, Exxon mobil subsidiary faces criminal charges over 2010 fracking
spill, Dallasnews, http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20130911-exxon-mobil-subsidiary-faces-criminal-charges-over-2010-fracking-spill.ece. p. 1,
(2013).
50. C. Linnitt, Alberta finds mismanagement of errors causes fracking water
contamination. http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/22/alberta-findsmismanagement-errors-causes-fracking-water-contamination-alberta.
p.1.(2012).
51. R. Swift, Spill in state forest moves gas drilling moratorium debate, TimesTribune, http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/spill-in-state-forest-moves-gasdrilling-morato-rium-debate-1.705590, p. 1, (2010).
52. M. Christou and M. Konstantinidou, Safety of offshore oil and gas operations:
Lessons from past accident analysis, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, http://
publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/27463/1/offshore-accident-analysis-draft-final-report-dec-2012-rev6-online.pdf (2012).
53. R. Rapier, Both sides mislead when it comes to fracking, http://blogs.wsj.
com/experts/2013/11/14/both-sides-mislead-when-it-comes-to-fracking
p. 1, (2013).d