Archive for the ‘Issue Alert’ Category
White House staffer “unclear” whether info on hydraulic fracturing is available to the public; EID clears up the confusion
It might very well be the most under-reported aspect of the debate surrounding hydraulic fracturing today: namely, the willingness of Carol Browner in the mid-1990s — then, EPA administrator; now, top energy advisor to President Obama — to directly engage opponents of fracturing technology with the facts on its use, the science on its safety, and the history supporting the proposition that states, and not EPA, are best equipped to regulate the process effectively.
Nearly fifteen years later, the technology defended by Ms. Browner in a series of letters back then is being called upon today to lead a veritable revolution – one with the promise to recast the energy and environmental future of this country, while retooling its engine of economic growth in a way that creates jobs, revenue and long-term opportunity for the people who need it most.
One wonders whether Ms. Browner’s current staff has read any of those letters of yore. Earlier this week, Joseph Aldy, a top Browner deputy, told a Washington audience that he’s “sort of” concerned that the solutions used in the fracturing process might contaminate drinking water — notwithstanding the existence of a 60-year track-record, and the testimony of his current boss, that suggest precisely the opposite conclusion.
To Dr. Aldy, it remains “unclear” whether a link exists between the use of hydraulic fracturing and the corruption of groundwater. Fortunately, what’s unclear to him is abundantly clear to several others who have studied this question for decades: EPA, for starters; the Ground Water Protection Council, which counts state ground water regulatory agencies among its membership; and again, Ms. Browner herself, who submitted the following when asked to assess whether a relationship existed between the fracturing of coalbed methane seams (which reside thousands of feet closer to the water table than shale formations) and the contamination of aquifers:
“There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water (USDW). … Moreover, given the horizontal and vertical distance between the drinking water well and the closest methane gas production wells, the possibility of contamination or endangerment of USDWs in the area is extremely remote.”
But what do we actually know about the process today? And more important: How do we know that we actually know it? Epistemic questions aside, Dr. Aldy has some serious practical ones. To wit: “I don’t think we have the information to assess” whether hydraulic fracturing technology is safe, Aldy told a reporter this week — because information detailing what’s involved in the fracturing process is, to his knowledge, not part of the public domain.
Except that it is. In fact, according to the Ground Water Protection Council, every state in which shale gas exploration actively takes place requires operators and service companies to provide a list of frac-related materials to state agencies; on the federal level, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires producers to keep similarly exhaustive documents on-site as well – information known as a Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). Indeed, these sheets not only list the specific compounds found in a specific treatment in use at a specific well site, but they also contain detailed technical information that can be used by first-responders and medical personnel in case of an emergency.
Here’s what one of those sheets look like. Here’s just one of the places you can go to search for them. And if you don’t have time for that, here’s where you can go to get lists derived from those sheets. Here’s another place (page 62). And another. But wait: You thought that information was secret, right? Not according to New York, which considers MSDSs to be “public information ineligible for exception from disclosure as trade secrets or confidential business information.” And certainly not according to Pennsylvania, which posts this information online as well. In fact, here’s the statement sent out by the Marcellus Shale Coalition just hours after the Aldy comments hit the ‘net:
“[W]e recognize the need to educate and engage stakeholders, policymakers, regulators, and concerned citizens, which is why we worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to fully disclose fluids used in Marcellus Shale. In fact, DEP lists these fluids publicly on its webpage. And these fluids are mandated by the federal government to be at all well locations, too.”
Here’s the thing about water safety: It’s a simple function of well integrity. And here’s the thing about well integrity: It’s the object of aggressive (and long-standing) regulation and oversight by the states. Believe it or not, when it comes to safeguarding the public’s supplies of drinking water, it really doesn’t matter what goes into the well, or what comes out. It doesn’t matter whether you’re producing natural gas, or oil, or water, or even geothermal. And here’s the kicker: It doesn’t even matter whether you’re using hydraulic fracturing technology to access it.
What truly matters here is the pathway – specifically, the ability to prevent that which is found inside the wellbore from “communicating” with phenomena that exist naturally outside of it. So how do producers ensure that never the two shall meet? Multiple layers of steel casing, for starters – installed in a way that ensures every inch of the wellbore is suspended in isolation from that which surrounds it. And once the pipe is put into place, it’s time to cement it – sealing-off any remaining pathways, however small, that might otherwise provide an unacceptable conduit for water. Did we mention yet that the areas we fracture reside thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) of feet below the areas the support drinking water? Or that the two strata are separated by millions of tons of impermeable rock?
Of course, these facts will all eventually find their way to the surface – in a manner not dissimilar to the enormous amounts of clean-burning natural gas that have been made possible through the common (yet innovative) use of hydraulic fracturing. One just hopes that, unlike the natural gas, these facts don’t remained trapped underground for the next three million years.
Continued>>
Pitt. Professor’s Claims on Shale Gas, Water Use Don’t Quite Reflect Reality
TODAY’S CLAIM: “Under normal circumstances, Volz does not talk in alarmed sound bites.”(11/13/08)
VOLZ FLASHBACK: “We have no control — we have absolutely no control — over our region’s water destiny.” (11/13/08)
Continued>>
McMahon Letter to Gov. Paterson Decrying Hydraulic Fracturing Short on Facts, Long on Hysteria
Yesterday, U.S. Rep. Michael McMahon (D-N.Y.) fired off a letter to Gov. David Paterson demanding that the state institute a blanket ban on the use of hydraulic fracturing technology in developing clean-burning natural gas resources on roughly one million acres of mostly private land in New York State.
According to the congressman, and five other members of the state’s congressional delegation who signed on as well, hydraulic fracturing – a technology that’s been used for decades in New York to safely and responsibly develop both oil and natural gas – “endangers the drinking water of more than 9 million New Yorkers.” And so, in their view, it must be stopped before it even begins – notwithstanding “any potential economic benefits” that may accrue to his constituents in the form of new jobs, new revenue, and the promise of a clean and affordable energy future.
At 531 words, the McMahon letter is brief – tight, to the point, and serially inaccurate. Let’s see how well it holds up under an EID fact check?
Continued>>
Local PA Audubon Society Chief Grouses over Responsible Shale Gas Exploration – His Cardinal Sin? No Facts
Here at Energy In Depth, we’ve seen our fair share of outrageous claims directed at the responsible development of clean-burning natural gas in the Marcellus shale. But rarely have we come across a single newspaper column that anthologizes them as exhaustively as the one we recently saw in the Wilkes-Barre (Pa.) Times Leader — penned by Greater Wyoming Valley Audubon Society chief Robert Wasilewski.
Take a look for yourself — if you’re looking for a thorough list of half-truths, distortions and outright misrepresentations related to the work being done right now in Pennsylvania to convert the state’s abundant energy resources into thousands of jobs and billions in local revenue, this is as complete as it gets.
Thankfully — and at the same time, regrettably — we’ve been down this road before. What follows is a quick side-by-side comparing Mr. Wasilewski’s claims with the actual facts as they exist:
Continued>>
In advance of Mayor Tillman’s trip to New York next week, EID poses a series of questions residents should ask while he’s there
It’s not every day you’re likely to run into the mayor of a small town in Denton Co., Texas ambling about the Southern Tier of New York State. But next week, that’s precisely where you’ll find DISH mayor Calvin Tillman – slated to make the nearly 1,500-mile trip to the Empire State to rally local environmental activists against efforts to explore for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale.
Now, wait a second: Isn’t this the same Marcellus Shale that studies suggest could create 16,000 high-wage jobs in Broome Co., N. Y. alone — and generate $15.3 billion in local economic development? Yep, that’s the one. Turns out, though, that the mayor of DISH isn’t as sanguine on shale gas as you’d expect. And to help him punctuate his case, he’ll be bringing to New York a couple of recent “studies” on the subject aimed at scaring local residents into believing that natural gas exploration will ruin their air, sully their land, and poison their water. Should be quite the show.
Of course, we can’t say for certain whether the mayor will mention to local residents that these studies have been almost universally panned by independent environmental engineers; that they were recently debunked by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) itself; or that the contractor who did the study for Mayor Tillman doesn’t have a licensed professional engineer on its staff.
And who knows? He may forget to mention his relationship with the Oil & Gas Accountability Project (OGAP), an anti-energy group based in Colorado (but active in New York) which considers clean-burning natural gas a “filthy” form of energy. He may not find it relevant to mention that OGAP funded one of the studies he plans to show off – or that his town’s official government website links to OGAP’s page on the internet. Who can say for sure?
Thankfully, in the off-chance the mayor forgets to mention any of these details to the audiences he plans to visit – or that reporters forget to ask – Energy In Depth has assembled the following list of questions that Mayor Tillman might like to answer during his stay in New York:
1) Mr. Mayor, your assertion that local natural gas exploration activities have adversely impacted the air quality of your town appears to be entirely founded on a study you commissioned by a group called Wolf Eagle Environmental. Are you aware that TCEQ conducted an internal review of this study and found that “it is not possible” to draw the types of conclusions that appear in that report?
2) Mr. Mayor, are you aware that Wolf Eagle Environmental was formerly known as Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers & Consultants – but was forced to change its name upon it becoming public that the organization did not (and, in fact, still does not) employ an actual licensed professional engineer on staff?
3) Mr. Mayor, is it true that once the Wolf Eagle evaluation was debunked, you accepted an offer from the national Oil & Gas Accountability Project (OGAP) to fund a second study of a similar type? Is it true that OGAP links are found on your town website? Are you aware that OGAP considers clean-burning natural gas a “filthy” energy source, and was in fact established as a means to fight natural gas exploration wherever, whenever and however it takes place?
4) Mr. Mayor, have you had the chance to take a look at TCEQ’s recent air quality study of the areas in and around the Barnett Shale? If so, did you note that of the 94 sites tested by TCEQ, 92 registered short-term effects screening levels (ESL) well below anything that would cause “alarm,” according to TCEQ’s toxicology director? Are you also aware that repairs at the remaining two sites tested by TCEQ have already been completed by industry and certified by the agency?
5) Mr. Mayor, you testified on numerous occasions that energy operators in your area are responsible for the emission of benzene and other potential contaminants into the air. But did you know that the mere act of filling up your tank with a conventional gas pump (one without a vapor recovery device) could expose you to benzene levels of 11,000 parts per billion (ppb), according to TCEQ — without any ambient air to dilute it? Are you aware that not even the Wolf Eagle study was able to find a single site in your area exceeding 78 ppb?
6) Mr. Mayor, are you aware that according to EPA, “oil and natural gas production contributes only 2% of the total benzene emissions in the U.S., and shale gas represents a very small subset of this 2%”?
7) Mr. Mayor, did you know that energy exploration is responsible for employing more than 200,000 people in your state? Accounts for the payment of more than $44 million in royalties and rents to landowners every year? And sends more than $4 billion each year to your treasury, representing nearly seven percent of your entire budget? Here in Upstate New York, we aren’t trying to be the next Texas – but can you understand how the availability of even a fraction of these new resources could help revive and strengthen our economy?
With that, we welcome the mayor to the Empire State – the only place in the world that can lay claim to (among so many other things) two Ivy League universities, Woody Allen, and the first-ever commercial gas well (Fredonia, 1829). Our hope is that he thoroughly enjoys his stay. And our expectation is that he’s ready, willing and able to render honest answers to the legitimate questions posed above.
Additional resources available at Energy In Depth:
Continued>>
Should state officials remain in charge of regulating fracturing activity in their communities? Yes. And EID counts the reasons why
Support for the safe development of clean-burning natural gas has always been a bipartisan affair. But to listen to Democratic Rep. Mike Doyle (Pa.) extol the virtues of modern-day shale gas exploration at a hearing in Congress last week, one was left to wonder how anyone, of any party, of any sensibility, could possibly oppose it.
Remember, Rep. Doyle still apparently supports the ill-advised windfall profits tax; he’s hardly a shill for the oil and natural gas industry. But the congressman can’t ignore the potential – heck, the reality – for shale gas to create jobs, revenue and opportunity for the residents of Pennsylvania. Just take a look at key segments of his excellent opening statement:
“We have had enormous success in my State of Pennsylvania with horizontal drilling in natural gas shale plays.”
“My State, Pennsylvania, has done a great job in regulating the natural gas industry, while allowing it to grow and prosper.”
“We have been known as a steel city, but pretty soon we may be known as the Saudi Arabia of natural gas with the Marcellus shale sitting underneath western Pennsylvania.”
“Last year alone Pennsylvania could attribute nearly 50,000 jobs to environmentally safe natural gas production.”
All that’s true, by the way – according to Penn State University, “in excess” of 48,000 jobs were created in the state in 2009 alone (and nearly $4 billion in economic activity) all thanks to a technology that allows producers to access and recover resources that would be too deep and difficult to otherwise get. Congressman Doyle certainly read the Penn State study, and it’s clear he knows a thing or two about the safeguards in place to ensure the critical work of developing these job-creating shale resources doesn’t come at the expense of our air, water or surrounding environment.
But that’s not to say that Rep. Doyle claims to know it all; as he made clear during last week’s hearing, he’s still got plenty of questions on the design, intent and potential impact of the FRAC Act on his district. Fortunately for Rep. Doyle, the bill’s lead sponsor – Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) — sat only a few seats away from him at last Wednesday’s hearing, eager to explain the functions of her bill to a subcommittee of which she isn’t even a member. Unfortunately for Rep. Doyle, Rep. DeGette’s characterization of her bill was, in the final analysis, so irreconcilably divorced from reality that it’s tough to imagine how anyone could have left the room with more or better information on the legislation than when he came in.
Which is too bad, really – because Rep. Doyle came to this hearing with a series of important questions on the FRAC Act, for which he expected answers. Here, according to the hearing transcript, is how Rep. Doyle set up his line of questioning:
Statement #1: In Pennsylvania, officials have “done a great job in regulating” Marcellus Shale exploration in the state;
Statement #2: In Pennsylvania, “we have rules in place to protect our underground sources of drinking water”;
Statement #3: In Pennsylvania, “in order to obtain a permit, drillers must identify any anticipated impacts of water withdrawals on water resources.”
Statement #4: In Pennsylvania, the “law requires drillers to case in grout wells through all freshwater aquifers before drilling through deeper zones in order to protect ground water from pollutants inside wells”;
Statement #5: In Pennsylvania, “there are also rules that require operators to disclose all chemicals to be stored and used at a drilling site, including chemicals and fracking fluids in order to guard against contamination and ensure safe disposal of these chemicals. That is Pennsylvania law.”
And Now His Question: Having established that Pennsylvania’s laws 1) are tough, 2) work well, and 3) haven’t forced producers to leave the state – what would be wrong with imposing a “national regulatory framework” based on the Pennsylvania model to create “uniformity and predictability” for those who operate in multiple states?
Why not back a national standard? And while we’re at it, why not back the FRAC Act – since all it’s trying to do is put a uniform rule in place? Reasonable questions, to be sure. Thankfully, they’re questions for which there are similarly reasonable and straightforward answers. Energy In Depth counts the ways:
1) Fractured Thinking on the FRAC Act. Those who say the FRAC Act will setup a straightforward, uniform standard for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing nationwide are simply not telling you the truth. In reality, and made clear by the actual text of the bill, the FRAC Act has only one single purpose in mind: prevent the development of America’s shale gas by establishing a de facto ban on the technology needed to produce it. Mechanically, the means by which the bill seeks to do that are genius: It doesn’t actually ban fracturing from taking place in explicit terms, it simply mandates that no fracturing activity can proceed until EPA issues the appropriate permits/approval under the Safe Drinking Water Act – something EPA literally cannot do under the current structure of SDWA.
2) The Fallacy of the Slacker State. One of the central justifications for imposing an EPA-driven, one-size-fits-all regulatory regime on hydraulic fracturing is that some states, to put it plainly, just aren’t doing their job. Observe here (page 80 of the PDF) how Rep. Doyle puts forward the proposition at the hearing:
“So my question is, because this Marcellus shale formation goes over several States and we have some laws that have regulations ‐‐ some States that have regulations, some States that have no regulations and everything in between, would a national regulatory framework … create uniformity and predictability for a company like yours?
Here are the facts: Of the 27 states that support 99.9 percent of all oil and gas exploration activities nationwide, all 27 have permitting requirements in place, right now, governing the siting, drilling, completion and operation of wells – which include operations related to hydraulic fracturing. Some of these states have had experience in regulating this process for more than 100 years. You can find a fact sheet on our website capturing all the relevant rules, regulations and data in the individual states.
3) Shale Plays are Like Snowflakes. No two are alike. Plainly put, the subsurface geology of Pennsylvania is dramatically different from the composition of underground strata in Texas. New York is different from West Virginia. Colorado is different from Kansas. Each state presents unique challenges to producers operating in that region – from the depth of the shale play, the volume of resources attached, to the temperature of rock below, to the availability of injection wells as an option for disposal. No two states – not even any two regions – will require the same exact fracturing treatment, and therefore no two states should be forced to live under the exact same regulatory system for bringing these resources to market. Regulators on the ground, in the community, know this terrain – physical and regulatory – better than anyone sitting at a desk in Washington, D.C.
4) EPA is Simply Ill-Equipped to Do the Job. Every month, more than 35,000 separate wells in 27 states undergo fracture stimulation work, and nine out 10 wells in America will require this technology to yield additional energy in the future. The idea that EPA staff – the majority of whom work out of offices in Washington, D.C. – would have the ability to properly oversee this system, and issue permits pursuant to it, is ridiculous. Even Carol Browner, the president’s current energy and environment czar, admitted that in a letter she wrote while serving as administrator of EPA. And, not for nothing, but doesn’t EPA already have enough on its plate these days without injecting itself in process the state’s have managed well for decades?
5) The Current System Works – and History Bears That Out. To accept the argument that EPA regulation of hydraulic fracturing is necessary, first you need to accept the premise that the current system of state-based regulation is broken. But the facts simply don’t bear that proposition out. From North Dakota to Texas, Montana to New Mexico, Colorado to Pennsylvania, Tennessee to Alaska – every one of these states has testified that fracturing activities pose no discernable threat to local drinking water. And as we’ve written before, there’s a darn good reason for why that’s the case: The areas we frac are isolated from the areas the house drinking water by thousands of feet in distance and millions of tons of impermeable rock. And on the surface, when a rare spill or incident does occur, state regulators – to a man – have testified that they’ve got all the authority they need to prosecute the offending parties, and ensure those incidents do not occur in the future.
Now are you starting to get the picture here? Truth is, energy producers encourage commonsense regulations. Fortunately, under the present system, operators have the ability in most states (New York, we’re looking at you) to produce these abundant shale gas resources in a way that’s both economical for their businesses, and safe for the surrounding communities in which they work. Those are the facts – and at a time of record unemployment and winnowing state revenues, those are the realities that policy-makers should consider before walking into the buzz saw known as the FRAC Act.
Continued>>
New Environmental Working Group white paper cites ProPublica, TEDX, and even itself in desperate smear campaign targeting HF
Lip gloss, sunscreen, and gummy bears – any idea what these three things have in common? Key ingredients of each are derived from a barrel of oil, believe it or not – so-called “petroleum distillates” that are essential to making everyday household items like deodorant and shampoo work the way they’re intended, albeit used in small enough quantities to ensure they’re safe for the millions of Americans who consume them.
You know what else is considered a petroleum distillate? Diesel fuel. Thankfully, you won’t find any of that in your lip balm. And the truth is, you won’t find any of it in the solutions used during the hydraulic fracturing process either.
Of course, irrespective of the materials used in fracturing a well, for those interesting in determining how safe the procedure is, the central question remains a simple one: How is that substance supposed to find its way through inches-thick steel casing cemented into the well bore? In other words, what are the pathways of exposure here? What exactly is it about a technology that’s been used millions times that just now, out of the blue, is suddenly so deleterious to our drinking water supplies? State regulators learned long ago that the way you protect groundwater is by keeping oil production fluids out of it. It’s a system that works; it doesn’t need EPA to be called in to slap it around.
On those questions, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) doesn’t claim to have many answers. In fact, all the group appears able and willing to claim in its recently posted white paper is that diesel fuel is being used in frac operations – notwithstanding the fact that federal statute explicitly identifies diesel fuel as a substance that, if used, immediately lands that operation under the regulatory authority of EPA.
But why would a fossil fuel-distillate like diesel be targeted for elimination when the formations being fractured already contain naturally occurring fossil fuels as it is? Good question. But it was. And so today, diesel fuel is simply not used in fracturing operations. Except in the trucks, of course – they still need diesel to run.
Whether EWG genuinely understands any of this, it’s tough to say. On one hand, the group states categorically on the opening page of its report that “toxic petroleum distillates” – which “include diesel” – are “threatening drinking water supplies from Pennsylvania to Wyoming,” citing a recent article by the advocacy group ProPublica in a half-hearted attempt to legitimize the assertion (ProPublica writer Abrahm Lustgarten is actually cited 12 separate times in 23 pages of text – but who’s counting?)
But here’s the thing: Later on that same page, we learn that a different culprit is to blame for these alleged incidents: Not diesel fuel itself per se, the report says, but “petroleum distillates that can be similar to diesel.”
Nonetheless, there you see “diesel” popping up again on EWG’s list of “petroleum distillates used in hydraulic fracturing,” with the group even citing an Aug. 2009 document published by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to back up its assertion. The only problem? The report to which they point says precisely the opposite of what EWG alleges. Here’s the report. See there on page 2 where it says the use of diesel fuel in fracturing operations has been “discontinued”? EWG must not have.
But let’s get back to these petroleum distillates for a second. Sure, you can find them in nail polish and wax paper, but how much of the fracturing solution do these things actually make up? Well, remember first that more than 99.5 percent of the materials used in a typical fracturing job is water and sand. So what makes up the remainder? Included below is a cut-away image of one of Energy In Depth’s most popular downloads.
Adapted from a similar chart organized by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ground Water Protection Council (page 78 of the PDF, available here), this document shows us a couple things: For starters, specific to the one-half of one-percent of the fracturing solution that’s not water or sand, only 0.088 percent of what remains is made up of these distillates. And second: Even if you accept the premise that infinitesimally small amounts of those distillates are used in the typical frac job, we’re talking about a substance that you could just as easily find in “make up remover, laxatives, and candy.”
See the game being played here? EWG has no evidence that diesel fuel is being used in fracturing operations; it has no evidence that rounding error-volume distillates are dangerous; and it has no interest in providing the proper context to its readers so that they might be able to make these determinations for themselves.
And as mentioned, perhaps the most regrettable reality of this whole report is that the group barely even attempts to explain to its readers how these “dangerous” materials are supposed to gain access to our drinking water – sine qua non to this entire debate. And once again, there’s a reason for that too: Steel casing is installed and cemented into place in each well that’s fractured nationwide, ensuring that what’s going down inside the wellbore has no chance of affecting that which is occurring naturally outside it. They know this. And that’s why they worked hard to ensure their report doesn’t say it.
As for the other blatant errors in the EWG report, perhaps we’ll leave some of those for another day. After all, how many times should we be expected to remind these folks that hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and therefore would’ve never needed an “exemption” from it? Our sense is that, by now, they know what’s factually accurate in this debate and what is not.
Our other sense is this: They just don’t care.
Continued>>
As Congress examines critical role that shale gas can play in securing America’s energy future, U.S. Energy Secretary renders his scientific judgment on key technology needed to produce it
Tomorrow morning, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and environment will preside over a congressional hearing slated to examine, among other issues, the current dimensions and future trajectory of the American energy revolution known as shale gas exploration.
The event is not expected to include testimony from U.S. Energy secretary Steven Chu. But if Mr. Chu’s recent comments on the safety and necessity of hydraulic fracturing are any indication, the 1997 Nobel prize-winner in the category of physics has plenty to add to a debate that would certainly benefit from some genuine scientific perspective.
Now, it’s true: Chu’s professional expertise isn’t often considered to reside in the sphere of upstream oil and natural gas production. But the man is considered an expert in the magneto-optical trapping of subatomic particles; it was Chu, after all, who came up with the idea of adding a spatially varying magnetic quadrupole to the red detuned optical field to perfect the process of laser cooling (why didn’t we think of that?!). So when the Energy secretary has something to say about the safety of modern-day shale gas technology, as he did late last week, he’ll find in us a captive audience:
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said on Friday that fracking could be done in a way to remove oil or gas that would not harm the environment and suggested Congress should not outlaw the practice.
“If it can be extracted in an environmentally safe way, then why would you want to ban it?” Chu told reporters. “I think it can be done responsibly.”We believe it can be done safely as well, incidentally – and not just because we’ve been deploying fracturing technology for more than 60 years now, and more than 1.1 million separate times, without engendering a single, credible case of drinking water contamination. For us, the better guidepost is science – science that not only confirms that which has not happened in the past, but a field of study that considers the geo-physical realities at play in ensuring it does not, and indeed cannot, happen in the future.
So for that, we look to geology – specifically, the physical barriers that exist between the underground strata containing potable supplies of drinking water (generally found between 100-350 feet below the surface) and the formations below (often miles below) that hold trillions of cubic feet of diffuse, tightly packed, job-creating shale gas resources. How do we know those confining strata will do their job and ensure the water at 200 feet is appropriately separated from the shale at 8,500 feet? Because they’ve been doing that job for a million years now — preventing the salty water that’s already down there naturally from penetrating our aquifers and ruining our drinking water.
But the science doesn’t end there; it’s expanded upon by operators and engineers on the surface, gilding the lily even further by cementing millions of pounds (and thousands of feet) of steel casing into the well – thus eliminating any and all pathways of exposure between what’s taking place inside the wellbore, and what’s naturally occurring outside it. That’s why fracturing is safe – not just because of the technology used to safeguard our water; not just because of the natural, geological barriers that exist below ground; not just because of the thorough regulatory oversight executed by the states; but thanks to a confluence of all these important components; each and every time, in each and every state in which the technology is deployed.
So, the question is: Will any of this come up in the subcommittee hearing tomorrow? Tough to say for sure. What we do know, however, is that Chairman Markey understands the critical role that the responsible development of America’s shale gas can play in achieving several specific economic and environmental goals near and dear to his heart. We include his latest comments on shale gas below – but trust us: the audio file does his statement a whole lot more justice.
Ninety percent of all new electrical capacity in America since 1990 has been natural gas, and it’s going to continue on that way as a baseload … But natural gas is going to do very well in the future, and the discoveries from the Marcellus Shale all the way through Barnett, that is all the way from New York down to Texas, are going to be big source of new electrical generation.
He’s right – the future of natural gas is as bright as it is boundless. But its potential will only be realized if Congress heeds the advice of Secretary Chu, the scientist, and doesn’t indulge itself in the unscientific justifications peddled by exponents of the FRAC Act.
Additional resources available at Energy In Depth:
Continued>>
Texas CEQ: “Oil and Gas Air Tests in Ft. Worth Find ‘No Cause for Concern’” (Release, 1/12/09)
Continued>>
Rep. Hinchey publishes detailed list of additions to draft DEC Marcellus regs; turns out most are already in the DEC document
U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) may be one of the chief authors of a bill in Congress that seeks a de facto, nationwide ban on hydraulic fracturing – creatively, by forcing operators to secure special permits from the EPA that the agency has no ability (statutory or operational) to issue. But at least back home in New York, with the state DEC poised to promulgate its final rules governing the safe and responsible development of the Marcellus, the congressman has emerged as a constructive participant in that debate.
For proof, look no further than the press release his office sent on December 23, 2009. Prepared as an accompaniment to the written comments the congressman formally submitted to DEC commissioner Pete Grannis the day before, the document lays out a series of changes to the underlying draft DEC framework that Mr. Hinchey believes DEC must make “before drilling should be permitted in New York.”
It’s a significant statement by Mr. Hinchey – one that, it would appear, puts him at odds with scores of national activists who have called on DEC to throw the entire document in the trash and keep the existing moratorium on all Marcellus activity intact. But that’s not what Mr. Hinchey appears to be demanding here, is it? Taking him at his word, he seems to be supportive of the idea of responsible, job-creating natural gas exploration – he just wants it to be done right. And thanks to his press release, we now know exactly what he believes is needed to make sure that particular standard is met.
So that’s the good news – but it gets even better from there. Examining the Hinchey press release, it turns out the vast majority of changes the congressman would like to see incorporated into the final DEC regulatory document can already be found in the draft underlying text – right now. The congruity is striking. Take a look for yourself:
Well, then. Now that we’re all in agreement, who thinks it’s about time to get work? Certainly we’ve got jobs to create, revenue for state and local governments to generate, and a clean energy future for New York to deliver. The good news is that now, hopefully, his edits adopted and concerns allayed, Mr. Hinchey can be part of that solution, both nationally and in New York. It’d certainly be a welcome development.
Continued>>
