A series of seven reports (and an overview) produced by teams of faculty and students at the University of Michigan, part of a two-year project called the Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment. This series of seven reports establishes the current situation and provides an excellent backgrounder for hydraulic fracturing and the process of shale drilling. Michigan has significant quanities of shale gas, particularly in the Utica-Collingwood layer. The reports say that with the low price of natural gas, it will not be economical to mine Michigan's shale gas for some years to come.

1. Overview +
Glossary
H Y D R A U L I C F R A C T U R I N G I N T H E S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

2. Participating University of Michigan Units
Graham Sustainability Institute
Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise
Risk Science Center
University of Michigan Energy Institute
THIS PUBLICATION IS A RESULT OF WORK SPONSORED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Direct questions to grahaminstitute-ia@umich.edu

3. GRAHAM SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT REPORT SERIES
VOLUME II, REPORT 1
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Overview + Glossary
SEPTEMBER 3, 2013
WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
T
here is significant momentum behind natural gas
extraction efforts in the United States, with many
individual states embracing it as an opportunity to
create jobs and foster economic strength. Natural
gas extraction has also been championed as a way to move toward
domestic energy independence and a cleaner energy supply. First
demonstrated in the 1940’s, hydraulic fracturing is now the predom-
inant method used to extract natural gas in the U.S. As domestic
natural gas production has accelerated in recent years, however,
the hydraulic fracturing process has come under increased public
scrutiny. Concerns include perceived lack of transparency, chem-
ical contamination, water availability, waste water disposal, and
impacts on ecosystems, human health, and surrounding commu-
nities. Consequently, numerous hydraulic fracturing studies are
being undertaken by government agencies, industry, NGO’s, and
academia, yet none have a particular focus on Michigan.

4. 2
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
What is Happening in Michigan?
Recent interest from energy developers, lease sales, and permit-
ting activities suggest increasing activity around deep shale gas
extraction in Michigan.
• Roughly 9,800 Antrim Shale wells are currently in production
and hydraulic fracturing was used as part of the completion
activity in virtually every one of these wells without incident.
Most of these wells were drilled and completed in the late
1980s and early 1990s. Some new activity will still take place,
and a very small number of the old wells may be hydraulically
fractured in the future, but this is a “mature” play and is unlikely
to be repeated.
• The hydrocarbon resources in the Utica and Collingwood Shales
in Northern Michigan will likely require hydraulic fracturing.
• A May 2010 auction of state mineral leases brought in a record
$178 million—nearly as much as the state had earned in the
past 82 years of lease sales combined. Most of this money was
spent for leases of State-owned mineral holdings with the Utica
and Collingwood Shales as the probable primary targets.
• Some ground water zones in Michigan are closer to gas zones
than in other shale gas regions. It is significant that the Antrim
Formation is only about 100 to about 1000 feet below the
potential fresh water zones, and approximately 9,800 wells have
been completed with no known contamination of fresh water
zones to date. The Utica and Collingwood Shales are 3,000 to
10,000 feet below the fresh water zones.
• State representatives have proposed packages of bills to
regulate hydraulic fracturing, and state officials are reviewing
existing regulations.
Recognizing this context and that future hydraulic fracturing
treatments will likely be of very high volume suggests a need for
Michigan to be as well prepared as possible to manage this trend.
What is being Done?
Through a research-based partnership of University of Michigan
(U-M) institutes, centers, and faculty, we are holistically evaluating
the impacts of hydraulic fracturing in Michigan. Hydraulic fractur-
ing has the potential to touch issues that all Michigan residents
care about - drinking water, air quality, Great Lakes health, water
supply, local land use, energy security, economic growth, tourism,
and natural resource protection. This project’s technical analysis,
stakeholder engagement, and proposed approaches to minimize
negative impacts will be important outcomes that guide future
decision making on this issue and hopefully help state decision
makers avoid some of the pitfalls encountered in other states.
The project is based on the premise that natural gas extraction
pressures will likely increase in Michigan due to a desire for job
creation, economic strength, energy independence, and cleaner
fuels.
What is Our Approach and Expertise?
This project is using Integrated Assessment (IA) (http://graham.
umich.edu/knowledge/ia), which is a useful method for analyzing
environmental, social, and economic dimensions of challenging
sustainability problems. The IA process achieves significant impact
by leveraging interdisciplinary faculty expertise and engaging
decision makers and stakeholders outside of academia to affect
policy analysis and decision making.
The figure above illustrates an IA framework focusing on hydrau-
lic fracturing and its impact on Michigan’s communities, human
health, and ecosystems. The project is:
• Leveraging and building upon U-M’s existing relationships to
facilitate successful partner and stakeholder engagement.
• Drawing on key studies and regulatory approaches from across
the country. Because hydraulic fracturing is thus far less con-
tentious in Michigan, this project can be a platform to consider
multiple stakeholder perspectives.
• Acknowledging that hydraulic fracturing is likely to be part of
Michigan’s future while providing analysis to address concerns
and determine what strategies may be needed to improve the
process.
Ecosystem
Impacts
Human Health
Impacts
Community
Impacts
Hydraulic
Fracturing in
Michigan
Technology
Policy
Science
Economics

5. 3
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
Currently identified U-M partners with relevant expertise include:
• The Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute is a bound-
ary organization connecting academics and policy-makers to
address challenging sustainability problems.
• The Risk Science Center is an interdisciplinary research and
communication center in the School of Public Health that
supports science-informed decision making on health risks.
• The Energy Institute seeks to chart the path to a clean, afford-
able and sustainable energy future through multi-disciplinary
research.
• The Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise is com-
mitted to creating a socially and environmentally sustainable
society through the power of business.
How Long Will it Take?
IA’s typically involve a 2 year timeline, the approach allows for flexi-
bility and interim deliverables based on partners’ needs.
PROCESS
Phase 1: Technical Reports
An effective IA in this context first requires compiling technical
reports to provide a solid foundation of information for decision
makers and stakeholders, and upon which the policy analysis can
be built. These reports cover key issues within each topic related
to hydraulic fracturing, and conclude with Michigan-specific ques-
tions/issues for later analysis in Phase 2. Below are the primary
topics which were identified for the technical reports and the lead
authors for each report:
• Technology: Johannes Schwank, Chemical Engineering; John
Wilson, U-M Energy Institute
• Geology/hydrogeology: Brian Ellis, Civil and Environmental
Engineering
• Environment/ecology: Allen Burton, School of Natural
Resources & Environment; Knute Nadelhoffer, Department of
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
• Human health: Nil Basu, School of Public Health
• Policy/law: Sara Gosman, Law School
• Economics: Roland Zullo, Institute for Research on Labor,
Employment, & the Economy
• Social/public perception: Andy Hoffman and Kim Wolske,
Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise
Each report considers a range of impacts/issues related to the
primary topic. There may be overlaps of impacts/issues analyses
as many of the items connect to multiple topics. Below is a non-ex-
haustive list of possible impacts/issues which may be considered
in the technical reports. While the IA has been developed to focus
on High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) in Michigan (defined
by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as hydrau-
lic fracturing activity intended to use a total of more than 100,000
gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid), data and analyses may cover a
range of activity depending on topic or issue.
Groundwater Impacts Health Impacts
Surface Water Impacts Community Benefits/Impacts
Risk Assessment State Economy Impact
Air Quality Impacts Indirect Impacts
(noise, traffic, roads)
Fracturing Materials Catastrophic Events
Federal-State-Local Policy Nexus Emergency Preparedness
Process Innovations Public Perception
Life Cycle Assessment Communications and Messaging
Non-regulatory Strategies Local Land Use Policy
Terrestrial and Aquatic System
Impacts
Lease Agreements/Good
Neighbor Models
Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil
Production
Management and Reuse of
Flowback Water
Methane Gas Releases On-site Diesel Emissions
Phase 2: Integrated Assessment
The IA will build from the technical reports, focus on identifying
strategic policy options, and work to address the following guiding
question:
What are the best environmental, economic, social, and
technological approaches for managing hydraulic fracturing
in the State of Michigan?
The IA will likely be formed around topics identified in the techni-
cal reports and faculty authors from Phase 1 will likely be involved
with the IA as leaders of topic specific analysis teams. However,
new faculty may also become engaged at this point.
Key aspects of the IA that will distinguish it from the technical
reports include:
• focus on the identification of key strategies and policy options,
• collaboration and coordination across analysis teams to identify
common themes and strategies,
• regular engagement with decision makers, and
• robust stakeholder engagement process to gauge public
concerns and perceptions.

6. 4
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
Steering Committee
The following steering committee has been assembled to guide
project efforts including the configuration and structure of the IA
during Phase 2:
• Mark Barteau, Director, U-M Energy Institute
• Valerie Brader, Senior Strategy Officer, Office of Strategic Policy,
State of Michigan
• John Callewaert, Int. Assessment Program Director, U-M
Graham Sustainability Institute
• James Clift, Policy Director, Michigan Environmental Council
• John De Vries, Attorney, Mika Meyers Beckett & Jones;
Michigan Oil and Gas Association
• Hal Fitch, Director of Oil, Gas, and Minerals, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
• Gregory Fogle, Owner, Old Mission Energy; Michigan Oil and
Gas Association
• James Goodheart, Senior Policy Advisor, Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality
• Andy Hoffman, Director, U-M Erb Institute for Global
Sustainable Enterprise
• Drew Horning, Deputy Director, U-M Graham Sustainability
Institute
• Andrew Maynard, Director, U-M Risk Science Center
• Tammy Newcomb, Senior Water Policy Advisor, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources
• Don Scavia, Director, U-M Graham Sustainability Institute
• Tracy Swinburn, Managing Director, U-M Risk Science Center
• Grenetta Thomassey, Program Director, Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council
• John Wilson, Consultant, U-M Energy Institute
The role of the steering committee is to provide broad stakeholder
input and guidance to the overall IA process and to ensure the
scope of study is relevant to key decision makers. Committee
members may also provide data and input to research teams
throughout the process, but decisions regarding content of project
analyses and reports are determined by the researchers.
Engagement
The IA will be informed by semi-annual meetings with analysis
teams and the steering committee for project updates and dis-
cussions. Twice during the IA, these meetings will involve a larger
group of decision makers and stakeholders. An online comments/
ideas submission site has been established to direct public input to
the steering committee and analysis teams: http://graham.umich.
edu/knowledge/ia/hydraulic-fracturing
Funding
At present, the IA is entirely funded by the University of Michigan.
The project is expected to cost at least $600,000 with support
coming from the University of Michigan’s Graham Institute, Energy
Institute and Risk Science Center. Current funding sources are
limited to the U-M general fund and gift funds, all of which are
governed solely by the University of Michigan. As the project
develops, the Graham Institute may seek additional funding to
expand stakeholder engagement efforts. All funding sources will
be publicly disclosed.
Timeline
• Mid May 2013: steering committee and technical report leads
meet to discuss technical reports and plans for the Integrated
Assessment
• Early September 2013: technical reports are released with
30 day public comment period for ideas and questions for the
Integrated Assessment
• Early Fall 2013: plans are developed for the Integrated
Assessment
• Mid 2014: final Integrated Assessment report released
(tentative)
Direct comments or questions to: grahaminstitute-ia@umich.edu

7. 5
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
AIR QUALITY. A measure of the amount of pollutants emitted
into the atmosphere and the dispersion potential of an area to
dilute those pollutants.
AQUIFER. A body of rock that is sufficiently permeable to con-
duct groundwater and to yield economically significant quantities
of water to wells and springs.
BASIN. A closed geologic structure in which the beds dip toward
a central location; the youngest rocks are at the center of a basin
and are partly or completely ringed by progressively older rocks.
BIOGENIC GAS. Natural gas produced by living organisms or
biological processes.
CASING. Steel piping positioned in a wellbore and cemented
in place to prevent the soil or rock from caving in. It also serves
to isolate fluids, such as water, gas, and oil, from the surrounding
geologic formations.
COAL BED METHANE/NATURAL GAS (CBM/CBNG). A
clean‐burning natural gas found deep inside and around coal
seams. The gas has an affinity to coal and is held in place by pres-
sure from groundwater. CBNG is produced by drilling a wellbore
into the coal seam(s), pumping out large volumes of groundwater
to reduce the hydrostatic pressure, allowing the gas to dissociate
from the coal and flow to the surface.
COMPLETION. The activities and methods to prepare a well for
production and following drilling. Includes installation of equip-
ment for production from a gas well.
CONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS. Natural gas comes from
both ‘conventional’ (easier to produce) and ‘unconventional’ (more
difficult to produce) geological formations. The key difference
between “conventional” and “unconventional” natural gas is the
manner, ease and cost associated with extracting the resource.
Exploration for conventional gas has been almost the sole focus
of the oil and gas industry since it began nearly 100 years ago.
Conventional gas is typically “free gas” trapped in multiple,
relatively small, porous zones in various naturally occurring rock
formations such as carbonates, sandstones, and siltstones.
CORRIDOR. A strip of land through which one or more existing or
potential utilities may be colocated.
DISPOSAL WELL. A well which injects produced water into an
underground formation for
disposal.
DIRECTIONAL DRILLING. The technique of drilling at an angle
from a surface location to reach a target formation not located
directly underneath the well pad.
DRILL RIG. The mast, draw works, and attendant surface equip-
ment of a drilling or workover unit.
EMISSION. Air pollution discharge into the atmosphere, usually
specified by mass per unit time.
ENDANGERED SPECIES. Those species of plants or animals clas-
sified by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce
as endangered pursuant to Section 4 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. See also Threatened and Endangered
Species.
EXPLORATION. The process of identifying a potential subsur-
face geologic target formation and the active drilling of a borehole
designed to assess the natural gas or oil.
FLOW LINE. A small diameter pipeline that generally connects a
well to the initial processing
facility.
FORMATION (GEOLOGIC). A rock body distinguishable from
other rock bodies and useful for mapping or description. Formations
may be combined into groups or subdivided into members.
FRACTURING FLUIDS. A mixture of water and additives used to
hydraulically induce cracks in the target formation.
GROUND WATER. Subsurface water that is in the zone of sat-
uration; source of water for wells, seepage, and springs. The top
surface of the groundwater is the “water table.”
HABITAT. The area in which a particular species lives. In wildlife
management, the major elements of a habitat are considered to
be food, water, cover, breeding space, and living space.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS1
1. General sources include:
• “Modern Shale Gas Development,” a Department of Energy Report:
www.eogresources.com/responsibility/doeModernShaleGasDevelopment.pdf
• The Canadian Association of Petroleum Products: www.capp.ca/
CANADAINDUSTRY/NATURALGAS/CONVENTIONAL-UNCONVENTIONAL/
Pages/default.aspx
• The Union of Concerned Scientists: www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/
our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/how-natural-gas-works.html

8. 6
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
HIGH VOLUME HYDRAULIC FRACTURING. High volume
hydraulic fracturing well completion is defined by the State of
Michigan as a “well completion operation that is intended to use
a total of more than 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid.”2
HORIZONTAL DRILLING. A drilling procedure in which the
wellbore is drilled vertically to a kickoff depth above the target
formation and then angled through a wide 90 degree arc such that
the producing portion of the well extends horizontally through the
target formation.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING. Injecting fracturing fluids into the
target formation at a force exceeding the parting pressure of the
rock thus inducing a network of fractures through which oil or nat-
ural gas can flow to the wellbore.
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE. The pressure exerted by a fluid
at rest due to its inherent physical properties and the amount of
pressure being exerted on it from outside forces.
INJECTION WELL. A well used to inject fluids into an under-
ground formation either for enhanced recovery or disposal.
LEASE. A legal document that conveys to an operator the right
to drill for oil and gas. Also, the tract of land, on which a lease has
been obtained, where producing wells and production equipment
are located.
NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material). Low‐level,
radioactive material that naturally exists in native materials.
ORIGINAL GAS IN PLACE. The entire volume of gas contained
in the reservoir, regardless of the ability to produce it.
PARTICULATE MATTER (PM). A small particle of solid or
liquid matter (e.g., soot, dust, and mist).PM10 refers to particu-
late matter having a size diameter of less than 10 millionths of a
meter (micrometer)and PM2.5 being less than 2.5 micro‐meters in
diameter.
PERMEABILITY. A rock’s capacity to transmit a fluid; dependent
upon the size and shape of pores and interconnecting pore throats.
A rock may have significant porosity (many microscopic pores)
but have low permeability if the pores are not interconnected.
Permeability may also exist or be enhanced through fractures that
connect the pores.
PRIMACY. A right that can be granted to state by the federal
government that allows state agenciesto implement programs
with federal oversight. Usually, the states develop their own set
of regulations. By statute, states may adopt their own standards,
however, these must be at least as protective as the federal stan-
dards they replace, and may be even more protective in order to
address local conditions. Once these state programs are approved
by the relevant federal agency (usually the EPA), the state then has
primacy jurisdiction.
PRODUCED WATER. Water produced from oil and gas wells.
PROPPING AGENTS/PROPPANT. Silica sand or other particles
pumped into a formation during a hydraulic fracturing operation
to keep fractures open and maintain permeability.
PROVED RESERVES. That portion of recoverable resources
that is demonstrated by actual production or conclusive formation
tests to be technically, economically, and legally producible under
existing economic and operating conditions.
RECLAMATION. Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it
acceptable for designated uses. This normally involves regrading,
replacement of topsoil, re‐vegetation, and other work necessary
to restore it.
SETBACK. The distance that must be maintained between a
well or other specified equipment and any protected structure or
feature.
SHALE GAS. Natural gas produced from low permeability shale
formations.
SLICKWATER. A water based fluid mixed with friction reducing
agents, commonly potassium chloride.
SOLID WASTE. Any solid, semi‐solid, liquid, or contained gas-
eous material that is intended for disposal.
SPLIT ESTATE. Condition that exists when the surface rights and
mineral rights of a given area are owned by different persons or
entities; also referred to as “severed estate”.
STIMULATION. Any of several processes used to enhance near
wellbore permeability and reservoir permeability.
STIPULATION. A condition or requirement attached to a lease
or contract, usually dealing with protection of the environment, or
recovery of a mineral.
2. Department of Environmental Quality, Supervisor of Wells Instruction 1-2011
(2011), available at www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/SI_1-2011_353936_7.pdf
(effective June 22, 2011). Michigan.

9. 7
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2). A colorless gas formed when sulfur
oxidizes, often as a result of burning trace amounts of sulfur in
fossil fuels.
TECHNICALLY RECOVERABLE RESOURCES. The total
amount of resource, discovered and undiscovered, that is thought
to be recoverable with available technology, regardless of
economics.
THERMOGENIC GAS. Natural gas that is formed by the com-
bined forces of high pressure and temperature (both from deep
burial within the earth’s crust), resulting in the natural cracking of
the organic matter in the source rock matrix.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES. Plant or animal
species that have been designated as being in danger of extinc-
tion. See also Endangered Species.
TIGHT GAS. Natural gas trapped in a hardrock, sandstone or
limestone formation that is relatively impermeable.
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS). The dry weight of dis-
solved material, organic and inorganic, contained in water and
usually expressed in parts per million.
UNCONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS. Natural gas comes
from both ‘conventional’ (easier to produce) and ‘unconventional’
(more difficult to produce) geological formations. The key differ-
ence between “conventional” and “unconventional” natural gas is
the manner, ease and cost associated with extracting the resource.
However, most of the growth in supply from today’s recoverable gas
resources is found in unconventional formations. Unconventional
gas reservoirs include tight gas, coal bed methane, gas hydrates,
and shale gas. The technological breakthroughs in horizontal drill-
ing and fracturing are making shale and other unconventional gas
supplies commercially viable.
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM (UIC).
A program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency,
primacy state, or Indian tribe under the Safe Drinking Water Act to
ensure that subsurface emplacement of fluids does not endanger
underground sources of drinking water.
UNDERGROUND SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER (USDW).
40 CFR Section 144.3 An aquifer or its portion:
(a) (1) Which supplies any public water system; or
(2) Which contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a
public water system;
and
(i) Currently supplies drinking water for human consumption; or
(ii) Contains fewer than 10,000 mg/l total dissolved solids; and
(b) Which is not an exempted aquifer.
WATER QUALITY. The chemical, physical, and biological char-
acteristics of water with respect to its suitability for a particular use.
WATERSHED. All lands which are enclosed by a continuous
hydrologic drainage divide and lay upslope from a specified point
on a stream.
WELL COMPLETION. See Completion.
WORKOVER. To perform one or more remedial operations on
a producing or injection well to increase production. Deepening,
plugging back, pulling, and resetting the liner are examples of
workover operations.

10. © 2013 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
MARK J. BERNSTEIN, ANN ARBOR
JULIA DONOVAN DARLOW, ANN ARBOR
LAURENCE B. DEITCH, BLOOMFIELD HILLS
SHAUNA RYDER DIGGS, GROSSE POINTE
DENISE ILITCH, BINGHAM FARMS
ANDREA FISCHER NEWMAN, ANN ARBOR
ANDREW C. RICHNER, GROSSE POINTE PARK
KATHERINE E. WHITE, ANN ARBOR
MARY SUE COLEMAN, EX OFFICIO
Please print sparingly and recycle

11. Technology
Technical
Report
H Y D R A U L I C F R A C T U R I N G I N T H E S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

12. Participating University of Michigan Units
Graham Sustainability Institute
Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise
Risk Science Center
University of Michigan Energy Institute
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This document is one of the seven technical reports com-
pleted for the Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated
Assessment conducted by the University of Michigan. During the
initial phase of the project, seven faculty-led and student-staffed
teams focused on the following topics: Technology, Geology/
Hydrogeology, Environment/Ecology, Human Health, Policy/
Law, Economics, and Public Perceptions. These reports were
prepared to provide a solid foundation of information on the
topic for decision makers and stakeholders and to help inform the
Integrated Assessment, which will focus on the analysis of policy
options. The reports were informed by comments from (but do
not necessarily reflect the views of) the Integrated Assessment
Steering Committee, expert peer reviewers, and numerous
public comments. Upon completion of the peer review process,
final decisions regarding the content of the reports were deter-
mined by the faculty authors in consultation with the peer review
editor. These reports should not be characterized or cited as final
products of the Integrated Assessment.
The reports cover a broad range of topics related to hydraulic
fracturing in Michigan. In some cases, the authors determined
that a general discussion of oil and gas development is important
to provide a framing for a more specific discussion of hydraulic
fracturing. The reports address common hydraulic fracturing (HF)
as meaning use of hydraulic fracturing methods regardless of well
depth, fluid volume, or orientation of the well (whether vertical,
directional, or horizontal). HF has been used in thousands of
wells throughout Michigan over the past several decades. Most
of those wells have been shallower, vertical wells using approxi-
mately 50,000 gallons of water; however, some have been deeper
and some have been directional or horizontal wells. The reports
also address the relatively newer high volume hydraulic fracturing
(HVHF) methods typically used in conjunction with directional
or horizontal drilling. An HVHF well is defined by the State of
Michigan as one that is intended to use more than 100,000
gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid.
Finally, material in the technical reports should be understood as
providing a thorough hazard identification for hydraulic fracturing,
and when appropriate, a prioritization according to likelihood of
occurrence. The reports do not provide a scientific risk assess-
ment for aspects of hydraulic fracturing.

13. GRAHAM SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT REPORT SERIES
VOLUME II, REPORT 2
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
The Application of Hydraulic
Fracturing Technologies to
Michigan Oil and Gas Recovery
SEPTEMBER 3, 2013
Faculty Leads
JOHN R. WILSON
CONSULTANT, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ENERGY INSTITUTE
JOHANNES W. SCHWANK
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
Executive Summary
3
1.0 Introduction
4
2.0 Status and Trends
12
3.0 Challenges and Opportunities
24
4.0 Prioritized Pathways For Phase 2
24
Literature Cited
THIS PUBLICATION IS A RESULT OF WORK SPONSORED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Direct questions to grahaminstitute-ia@umich.edu

14. 2
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
T
his report focuses on technical issues related to
hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” technologies and
related methods of oil and gas recovery with special
emphasis on methods that find applications in the
State of Michigan. The report also identifies technical issues in the
area of hydraulic fracturing that may require additional research.
A brief review of the history of oil and gas recovery in Michigan
is included, and the Michigan-based activities are discussed and
contrasted with other U.S. and Canadian hydraulic fracturing
activities. Since Michigan has limited experience with deep and/or
directional drilling, this report also draws on the experience devel-
oped in other states.
Michigan, compared to other states in the U.S., has been a mid-
dle-of-the-pack producer of both oil and gas for many years. After
the first commercially successful recovery of oil in Michigan in the
Saginaw field in 1925, oil was also found near Muskegon, between
Midland and Mount Pleasant, in the northern Niagaran Reef struc-
ture and along a trend between Albion and Scipio. Oil production
in Michigan peaked in 1981-83 at about 32 million barrels/year but
has since than declined by about 50%1
. Natural gas production
started later in Michigan, mostly in the Antrim Shale and in the
northern Niagaran Reef, and peaked in 1996 at almost 300 billion
cu. ft./year. Michigan’s natural gas production has since fallen
steadily to a little under 150 billion cu. ft./year2,3
. For comparison,
the U.S. uses about 18 million barrels of oil daily (6.6 billion barrels
annually) and about 23 trillion cu. ft. of natural gas annually4
.
In the past 30 years, there have been no significant new oil finds
in Michigan. However, considerable reserves of natural gas are
believed to exist in deep shale formations such as the Utica-
Collingwood, which underlies much of Michigan and eastern
Lake Huron and extends well down into Ontario, Canada. Despite
attempts dating back as far as 1859 in both Michigan and Ontario to
extract gas, gas liquids and even oil from this very tight formation,
there has been no successful commercial development to date. A
few promising finds in Kalkaska County in Michigan, on Manitoulin
Island in Lake Huron, and on the Southern Ontario mainland as
far south as Niagara Falls have not yet led to commercial devel-
opment. In view of the currently low price of gas, the high cost of
drilling these deep shales, and the absence of new oil discoveries,
it is unlikely that there will be significant growth of the oil and gas
industry in Michigan (or Ontario) in the near-term future.
High-pressure (usually deep well) hydraulic fracturing (HF) rep-
resents one of many widely used methods of enhancing or ini-
tiating oil and gas recovery from deep, tight formations5
. It has
not found widespread application in Michigan, except for a few
exploratory wells in the Utica/Collingwood and the associated A-1
and A-2 Carbonates. However, HF has been used in the form of
low-pressure nitrogen foam fracking and also low-pressure water
fracking in the Antrim Shale in the northern Lower Peninsula since
the late 1940s (Hal Fitch, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, pers. comm.).
Hydraulic fracking originated in 1947-1949, initially in Kansas,
Oklahoma, and Texas as a means of stimulating production from
uneconomic gas and (mostly) oil wells, and was quickly success-
ful at increasing production rates by 50% or more, typically using
hydrocarbon fluids (not water) as the carrier. Fracking now involves
water mixed with at least 9-10% of sand or a synthetic ceramic such
as calcined bauxite. The sand or ceramic particles are dispersed in
the water to help keep the cracks in the formation open; the water
also contains about 0.5 % of a total of about 10 chemical additives
(such as surfactants and antibacterial agents similar to those used
in dishwashing detergents) to help keep the newly-formed cracks
open and clean. In the past, far less environmentally benign chem-
icals were added but the use of these has been discontinued by all
of the major operators and their sub-contractors, partly as a result
of public pressure and greater state disclosure requirements.
As noted, hydraulic fracturing was first performed experimentally
in 1947 and the first commercial “frac job” was performed in 1949.
As of 2010, it was estimated that 60% of all new oil and gas wells
worldwide were being hydraulically fractured6
. Many of these early
fracking jobs were a mixture of stimulation of oil and gas produc-
tion from existing under-performing wells and the development of
new wells in “tight” formations from which commercially accept-
able oil and gas flows could not otherwise be obtained. As of 2012,
it is estimated that 2.5 million hydraulic fracturing jobs of all kinds
have been performed on oil and gas wells worldwide, over one
million of them in the United States7
. To date in the U.S., fracking
technologies are estimated to have been applied to more than
1.25 million vertical or directional oil or gas wells. Canadian com-
panies have fracked at least another 200,000 wells8
. In many recent
cases, a combination of directional drilling and high-pressure
multi-stage fracking has been used to access oil or gas trapped in
larger ‘drainage volumes’ of a reservoir.
Modern high-pressure HF is generally applied to deep, often
directional wells and uses what are often perceived as high vol-
umes of water (typically up to 7 million gallons per well although in
a very small number of cases, including one in Michigan, quantities
over 20 million gallons have been reported, usually associated with
unusually low flowback water recoveries and apparently associated
with abnormal “sinks” for water deep underground). Compared
to other industrial or agricultural uses, these volumes of water
are not large, but water availability tends to be a local or regional

15. 3
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2013
problem, and its use for fracking has raised concerns especially in
the western U.S. To decrease the use of water, several non-aque-
ous fracking methods are now in use or being developed. A more
serious problem is disposal or treatment of the often-substantial
fraction of the fracking water returned as so-called flowback water
and also of any subsequently produced water. Flowback or pro-
duced water is now often (as in Michigan) disposed of in Federal
or State approved deep injection wells. An increasing and so far
partially successful effort is being made to develop better water
treatment methods for the often highly saline return water which
may also contain small amounts of hydrocarbons, some of them
toxic9
. If these treatment methods are effective, the water can be
re-used—and in some cases is, in Colorado and Pennsylvania, for
example.
Another concern for the natural gas industry is potential leakage
of methane. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Over the years,
substantial efforts have been made to gradually decrease the num-
ber of both large and small leaks in the national distribution sys-
tem. Newly designed pipeline compressors, once a major source
of methane leaks, are now essentially leak-proof while gas process-
ing plant hardware and instrumentation is improving through the
use of welded joints and changes in design. In the past, fracked
gas well sites used to be fairly major contributors to methane leaks
due to careless handling of flowback water and practices such as
open-well liquids unloading and incomplete combustion in flares.
Field monitoring of methane emissions from such sites now shows
them to be comparable to conventional gas wells producing under
reservoir pressure, and field levels of methane leaking from HF
sites are now generally low, as was very recently confirmed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)10
. Although methane
leakage remains a concern for the natural gas industry in general,
the probability of significant methane leakage in deep shale drill-
ing, completion, hydraulic fracturing, testing, and production in
Michigan is quite low provided that best practices are adhered to.
However, local distribution systems in older cities are still thought
to be a major source of methane leakage.
Fracking, like oil or gas drilling, involves complex equipment and
procedures operated by humans. Errors and accidents do occa-
sionally occur, sometimes leading to the escape of fracking water
or, much more often, gas into the atmosphere or into groundwater
or drinking water aquifers. Fortunately, such events have become
increasingly rare over the past ten years as both regulations and
industry practices have improved. Most recent incidents have
involved faulty equipment or its faulty installation. This report
reviews the safety record accumulated over more than 30 years of
high-pressure deep well fracking (and a much longer period of all
forms of fracking) and arrives at the conclusion that the fracking
process has a good safety record.
Phase 2 work that is proposed includes a long-overdue study of the
adsorption of natural gas components on minerals that are found
in Michigan’s gas reservoirs as well as a more quantitative look at
the physical characteristics of the Collingwood, Utica, and related
shales that are thought to be important to Michigan’s natural gas
future.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A
lthough Michigan has long been a moderately
prolific (albeit now declining) producer of oil and
gas, in common with many other states, it is in most
ways geologically unique. While it has some charac-
teristics in common with neighboring Indiana, Ohio and Ontario,
Canada, the history of “fracking” in other states such as Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New York, Texas, Colorado or Wyoming has limited
relevance in Michigan. Among American states, Michigan has
been a middle-of-the-pack producer of both oil and gas for many
years. This report will combine that part of out-of-state experience
that is relevant to Michigan with the state’s 100+ years of in-state
discovery and production of oil and gas. It will provide an analy-
sis of the past, present, and likely future of the use of formation
drilling and fracturing technologies to enhance natural gas and oil
production in the state.
The first commercial discovery of oil in Michigan was made in the
Saginaw field in 1925. This was followed by many other finds near
Muskegon, between Midland and Mount Pleasant, in the northern
Niagaran Reef structure and along a trend between Albion and
Scipio11
. Oil production state-wide increased steadily and peaked
in 1981-83 at about 32 million barrels/year but has declined by
more than 50% since that time3
. Natural gas production devel-
oped somewhat later in Michigan, mostly in the Antrim Shale and
in the northern Niagaran Reef, and grew steadily until 1996 when
it peaked at almost 300 billion cu. ft./year. Michigan’s natural gas
production has since fallen to a little under 150 billion cu. ft./year.
For comparison, the U.S. uses about 18 million barrels of oil daily
(6.6 billion barrels annually) and about 23 trillion cu. ft. of natural
gas annually7
.
No significant new finds of oil have been made in Michigan in the
past 30 years. Additional natural gas is thought to exist in deep
shale formations such as the Utica-Collingwood, which underlies
much of Lower Michigan and Lake Huron and extends well down
into Ontario, Canada. Attempts have been made in both Michigan
and Ontario to extract gas, gas liquids and even oil from this very
tight formation dating back to 1859, but so far there has been no
successful commercial development. There have, however, been
one or two promising (but so far undeveloped) finds in several

16. 4
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2013
areas such as Kalkaska County in Michigan and on Manitoulin
Island in Lake Huron and on the Southern Ontario mainland as far
south as Niagara Falls. Notwithstanding these positive indications,
the low price of gas, the high cost of drilling these shales, and the
absence of new oil finds do not bode well for the near-term future
of the oil and gas industry in Michigan (or Ontario).
2.0 STATUS AND TRENDS
2.1 A Brief History of Oil and Gas in Michigan
and Vicinity
The following map shows the well-established bedrock geology of
Michigan12
. The map shows the irregular “stack of dinner plates”
characteristic of Michigan geology which has resulted in formation
Figure 1: Geology of Michigan12
KEWEENAW
HOUGHTON
ONTONAGON BARAGA
MARQUETTE
GOGEBIC
CHIPPEWA
LUCE
ALGER
SCHOOLCRAFT
IRON
DICKINSON
MACKINAC
DELTA
MENOMINEE
EMMET
CHEBOYGAN
PRESQUE ISLE
CHARLEVOIX
ALPENA
MONTMORENCY
LEELANAU
OTSEGO
ANTRIM
GRAND TRAVERSE
ALCONAOSCODACRAW FORDKALKASKA
BENZIE
IOSCOOGEMAWROSCOMMONMANISTEE MISSAUKEEWEXFORD
ARENAC
MASON GLADWINCLAREOSCEOLALAKE
HURON
BAY
MIDLANDISABELLAOCEANA MECOSTA
NEWAYGO
TUSCOLA
SANILAC
SAGINAW
GRATIOTMUSKEGON MONTCALM
LAPEER
KENT GENESEE
ST CLAIR
OTTAW A
SHIAWASSEE
CLINTONIONIA
MACOMB
OAKLAND
LIVINGSTONINGHAMEATONBARRYALLEGAN
WAYNE
WASHTENAWJACKSONCALHOUNKALAMAZOOVAN BUREN
BERRIEN
MONROE
LENAWEEHILLSDALE
BRANCHST JOSEPHCASS
BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF
LOWER PENINSULA
SALINA GROUP
BASS ISLAND GROUP
GARDEN ISLAND FORMATION
BOIS BLANC FORMATION
MACKINAC BRECCIA
SYLVANIA SANDSTONE
DETROIT RIVER GROUP
DUNDEE LIMESTONE
BELL SHALE
TRAVERSE GROUP
ANTRIM SHALE
ELLSWORTH SHALE
BEDFORD SHALE
BEREA SS & BEDFORD SH
SUNBURY SHALE
COLDWATER SHALE
MARSHALL FORMATION
MICHIGAN FORMATION
BAYPORT LIMESTONE
SAGINAW FORMATION
GRAND RIVER FORMATION
RED BEDS
BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF
WESTERN UPPER PENINSULA
JACOBSVILLE SANDSTONE
FREDA SANDSTONE
NONESUCH FORMATION
COPPER HARBOR CONGLOMERATE
OAK BLUFF FORMATION
PORTAGE LAKE VOLCANICS
SIEMENS CREEK FORMATION
INTRUSIVE
QUINNESEC FORMATION
PAINT RIVER GROUP
RIVERTON IRON FORMATION
BIJIKI IRON FORMATION
NEGAUNEE IRON FORMATION
IRONWOOD IRON FORMATION
DUNN CREEK FORMATION
BADWATER GREENSTONE
MICHIGAMME FORMATION
GOODRICH QUARTZITE
HEMLOCK FORMATION
MENOMINEE & CHOCOLAY GROUPS
EMPEROR VULCANIC COMPLEX
SIAMO SLATE & AJIBIK QUARTZITE
PALMS FORMATION
CHOCOLAY GROUP
RANDVILLE DOLOMITE
ARCHEAN ULTRAMAFIC
ARCHEAN GRANITE & GNEISSIC
ARCHEAN VOL. & SEDIMENTARY
MACKINAC BRECCIA
BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF
EASTERN UPPER PENINSULA
MUNISING FORMATION
TREMPEALEAU FORMATION
PRAIRIE DU CHIEN GROUP
BLACK RIVER GROUP
TRENTON GROUP
COLLINGWOOD SHALE MEMBER
UTICA SHALE MEMBER
STONINGTON FORMATION
BIG HILL DOLOMITE
QUEENSTON SHALE
MANITOULIN DOLOMITE
CABOT HEAD SHALE
BURNT BLUFF GROUP
MANISTIQUE GROUP
ENGADINE GROUP
POINT AUX CHENES SHALE
SAINT IGNACE DOLOMITE
SALINA GROUP
BASS ISLAND GROUP
GARDEN ISLAND FORMATION
BOIS BLANC FORMATION
MACKINAC BRECCIA
0 20 40 MilesDate: 11/12/99
N
Michigan
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT O FNATURAL RESOU RCES
LAND AND MINERALS SERVICES DIVISION
RESOURCE MAPPING AND AERIAL PHO TOG RAPHY
Michigan Resource Information System
Part 609, Resource Inventory, of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended.
Automated from "Bedrock Geology of Mi chi gan," 1987, 1:500,000 scal e,
which was compiled from a vari ety of sources by the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality, Geological Survey Division.
SOURCE
RMAP
1987 BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF MICHIGAN