Overall, the study found that seven out of the top 10 states surveyed that saw rises in household income during the current recession were states in which oil and natural gas development is a significant contributor to that state’s economy.

This graph, taken from the study lays in pretty clear detail the top performing states (and in DC’s case, non-states) in the context of overall increases in household income. Of course, it’s pretty obvious why DC tops the list here (recessions are a great time to be doing government work!), but take a look at the states that follow: all but Iowa and Hawaii are major oil and gas producing states:

But the cool thing about this study is that it goes even deeper than the states – it actually takes a look at individual metropolitan areas and examines how they’re faring under the current recession. Take a look at the top performers below. Any of them have anything in common?

From reviving local steel mills, supporting family businesses, and providing jobs for our nation’s veterans, the safe development of America’s homegrown natural resources is providing real opportunities for communities that might otherwise be in a lot rougher shape if those who oppose energy development got their way.
And not for nuthin’: Those who work in the oil and gas industry benefit from wages that are literally tens of thousands of dollars a year higher than those who work in peer industries – consider: the average natural gas industry wage is $76,910 compared to the average household income of $50,398.  Just this fact alone makes it clear why groups such as the Laborers International Union of North America and local chapters of the International Union of Operating Engineers are stepping up to support the safe and responsible development of our nation’s natural gas resources.  The answer: its reviving blue collar communities throughout the nation.

During yesterday’s House Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on EPA’s draft Pavillion report, things got off to a circus-like start when New York filmmaker and Gasland producer Josh Fox deliberately violated committee rules to get himself arrested. The stunt worked, and news of the hearing largely focused on Fox’s arrest. The hearing itself actually should have made significant headlines, especially when the EPA backpedaled from its own accusation in the draft report about hydraulic fracturing causing water contamination.

But there’s another story involving Mr. Fox and the Gasland crew that suggests his PR stunt may have involved something deeper and more disturbing.

As the hearing officially began, ranking member Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) stated that ABC News had also been denied the opportunity to film the hearing, and the subcommittee should allow for greater access. Miller challenged the standing rule that no outside unaccredited filming was allowed, in part by stating:

“…it’s clear we have space in this room to film this hearing. If you claim that rule does not allow them to film, or allows you the discretion to turn them away, I move the rules be suspended so the fella who wanted to film for HBO be allowed to film this hearing and that ABC be allowed to film this hearing and all God’s children be allowed to film this hearing until the room is too full for us to conduct our business.”

The fact that even ABC had been turned away showed an unwillingness to allow public access at all, Miller suggested. The congressman’s motion to allow ABC (and Josh Fox) to return and film the hearing required a vote, which requires a quorum, so the hearing was suspended for 45 minutes until enough members could be rounded up to enter the room and vote (the motion was ultimately rejected).

Had ABC not been one of the outlets trying to film, it’s unlikely that such a spectacle would have occurred. Would a sitting member of Congress really hold up a major public hearing to accommodate the demands of a non-credentialed, camcorder-wielding activist? In that sense, ABC provided a convenient cover.

But after the hearing ended, an interesting revelation was made: As it turns out, ABC didn’t send a film crew to the hearing at all. As POLITICO reported, the videographer who had been turned away was actually hired by Gasland producer Trish Adlesic to film the hearing, not by ABC. It looked, at least for the moment, like the situation was nothing more than staffers receiving conflicting (and bad) information.

Or was it more deliberate?

Adlesic, the Gasland producer, and Matthew Sanchez – its editor – both attempted to film the hearing, and both were turned away. All of this demonstrates a broader and more coordinated effort on the part of Josh Fox’s crew — something beyoned what Fox later referred to as an act “done in an impromptu fashion.” The hearing, it should be noted, was broadcast live and in its entirety on C-SPAN and via live stream on the subcommittee’s webpage.

But how did ABC News play into this?

Last night, after seeing the countless news stories about Fox’s arrest, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee released a statement about Josh Fox and the reason Capitol Hill police removed him from the room. That statement also referenced ABC:

It has been misreported that the Committee turned away an accredited ABC News crew prior to the hearing.  While a film crew arrived at the hearing claiming to be with ABC News, the ABC News Washington bureau confirmed to the Committee it was unaware of sending any crew to tape the hearing.

It appears, then, that the videographer in question was not only hired by a Gasland producer, but had also falsely claimed to be representing ABC in order to gain access to the hearing.

Of course, by then, the stories had already been written. Not only had reporters already submitted stories referencing ABC News being kicked out, but activist groups were already creating petitions citing the “unlawful” act of denying “journalists” access to the hearing. As one such group, Water Defense, wrote in a plea sent out only hours after the hearing:

Josh [Fox] was charged with unlawful entry. An ABC News crew was also asked to leave. Since when is it unlawful for filmmakers and news organizations to document a hearing of major public importance?

With his efforts to uncover the truth about fracking and the natural gas industry, Josh Fox helped give our movement a huge boost and educated millions of Americans about this important issue. He and others should be allowed to film all Congressional hearings on fracking in order to better inform the public on this important issue.

All of this raises important questions. Did Josh Fox and his crew tell other activist groups that ABC had been denied entry? Did those organizations know the ABC angle was merely a foil? How many other times has Fox’s crew used false identities and pretenses to gain access to the places they seek?

And above all, if a group of people is willing to be dishonest about something like this, what won’t they be dishonest about?

Gasland 2 is scheduled to be released later this year.

—

UPDATE (Feb. 2, 4:28 p.m. ET): Josh Fox just appeared on MSNBC’s “News Nation” with Tamron Hall to talk about his arrest yesterday, and his contention that he’s so important now that Republicans in Congress have decided to essentially “blacklist” him from entering the Capitol complex. Fox delivered his usual screed against developing natural gas from shale, but Ms. Hall, the anchor, also recited some misleading talking points about Gasland that Fox himself may as well have written for her.

Here are a few of the biggest errors in the segment:

Tamron Hall (0:22): “But instead of letting him [Fox] in, Capitol Hill police hauled him off in cuffs.”

FACT: Josh Fox was not arrested for merely being in the room. He, like everyone else there, had every right to attend, observe, and report on the proceedings. He was let into the room, but was asked multiple times to take down his camera equipment, which he refused to do. This was not, as Hall suggested, about Fox being able to attend the hearing, but rather his deliberate decision to violate the rules relating to filming a hearing — a hearing that was being broadcast live on C-SPAN and via live-stream on the subcommittee’s webpage.

-

Hall (0:42): “Did you have the proper credentials?”

Josh Fox (0:44): “Yes.”

FACT: No, he did not. As the Committee’s rules clearly state: “Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Galleries.” Fox was not. He admitted just seconds after this, however, that “there is proper protocol” and that his crew “went through the proper channels,” but they did not receive credentials because they were attempting to gain them late in the evening before the hearing.

-

Hall (1:51): “Literally, the drinking water coming from the faucet in people’s homes lights up on fire due the [gas] drilling practice…”

FACT: This is actually one of the biggest falsehoods of the entire film (and Josh Fox knows it). Colorado regulators debunked the claim that the infamous “flaming faucet” was due to gas production. In fact, the state of Colorado determined conclusively that it “was not related to oil and gas activity,” but rather naturally-occurring methane. Fox, predictably, continues to claim the opposite, despite the facts.

-

Hall (2:02): “It is stunning, saddening, and sickening I believe to watch this [Gasland].”

FACT: We actually agree, but it’s because the movie is full of misinformation, not because the film is an accurate portrayal of what happens when you drill and complete a natural gas well, something industry has done in this country more than 1.2 million separate times.

-

Fox (2:13): “This was the Republicans holding a hearing with a panel full of gas lobbyists…” Seconds later (2:40) he again accuses the Republicans of “loading up the panel with gas lobbyists” to question the EPA’s findings in its draft report on Pavillion.

FACT: Here is who was actually on the panel: Jim Martin, EPA Region 8 administrator; Tom Doll, State Oil and Gas Supervisor for the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for the Western Energy Alliance; and Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus of the Graduate School of Public Health and the University of Pittsburgh. If that list doesn’t sound like a line-up “full of gas lobbyists” to you, it’s because it is not.

-

Fox (3:12): “[Y]ou have the journalists trying to report on this situation being hauled away in handcuffs.”

FACT: There was an entire section of the room filled with journalists using their computers, cell phones, and notepads to report on the hearing (I was there, and talked to a number of them). Many filed their stories while seated in the committee room. The hearing was also broadcast online and on C-SPAN, so many more were likely reporting on the hearing from the comfort of their own home or office desks.

-

Fox (3:43): “[T]he campaign for fracking has backfired because what it does is contaminate ground water.”

FACT: No, it does not. As EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has admitted, there is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing process contaminates ground water. State regulators from across the country have similarly affirmed its safety record, and even EPA’s Jim Martin (who testified at the hearing yesterday) has stated that, despite EPA’s careless statements in the draft report on Pavillion, “the causal link [of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively.”

The first to testify today was Jim Martin, administrator for EPA’s Region 8 office, who defended the agency’s report but also included an important caveat in his remarks:

We make clear that the causal link [of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively, and that our analysis is limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field and should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings.

Immediately following the release of EPA’s draft report, a series of questions began to emerge not just about the report’s finding on hydraulic fracturing, but even the process itself that EPA used to test ground water. Martin’s public admission that no causal link exists between water contamination and hydraulic fracturing followed in the wake of those questions, but was unfortunately made nearly two months after the EPA claimed such a link was “likely.” Martin claimed today, however, that the EPA merely “hypothesized potential pathways.”

Tom Doll from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission added to the mounting list of questions, accusing the EPA of using a “limited data set” to make “technically inadequate conclusions” in its report. “No data was provided by the EPA for the Pavillion Draft Report showing the producing depth, well construction or producing aquifer isolation,” Doll noted in his prepared remarks. During questioning by the Committee, Doll pointed out that the groundwater that the EPA tested for its report is different from the drinking water used by Pavillion residents, and the methane EPA analyzed was not the same as any potential biogenic methane that could be found in drinking water.

Doll also called into question the EPA’s focus for the report, which began as a means of helping local residents solve problems related to their water quality. “The EPA report does not address the need to solve the landowner’s water supply issues; rather the report only addresses hydraulic fracturing,” Doll added.

In December, Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) wrote to the EPA about the report, saying he was “troubled by the EPA’s dismissal of the practical concerns raised by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Encana related to the nature and the protocols employed in conducting the sampling procedures.” Doll noted at the hearing that the EPA did not reach out to WOGCC as it was preparing its report, a fact that Martin disputed on the basis that EPA had reached out to DEQ. WOGCC regulates oil and gas development in the state.

Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance criticized EPA’s draft report, noting that the industry is justifiably held to extremely high standards and regulators should be held to a similarly high standard in their research and conclusions. “The public trusts EPA to protect the environment, follow the law, and use sound science as the foundation of its regulatory work,” Sgamma said. But, in the case of Pavillion, “EPA’s own data and methods have raised serious questions” about their report and “led to concerns about unscientific methods, and lack of transparency and peer review.”

While the focus of the hearing was on the Pavillion report, the participants also engaged in a broader discussion of natural gas development. Professor Bernard Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh, whose testimony was “based upon personal discussion” with environmental activist groups, called for a slowdown in development until public health impacts could be determined.

But public data compiled late last year found that key health indicators actually improved across the board in Denton County, Texas – the heart of shale development in the United States. That followed the release of a separate study that found “no significant health risks” associated with developing natural gas from shale.

Goldstein also likened hydraulic fracturing to a “two-ton bomb” and, echoing remarks from Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), accused the industry of keeping fracturing fluids a secret (Miller’s opening statement included the term “secret sauce” when referencing the additives). Last year the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission established the website Frac Focus, which provides well-by-well information of the additives used during hydraulic fracturing. In the past year, both Texas and Colorado have passed laws that incorporate Frac Focus into their statutory requirements on disclosure (and, of course, EID has also maintained a publicly available list of those chemicals for years).

As today’s testimonies show, EPA’s report on Pavillion continues to spur more questions than answers; not about hydraulic fracturing, but rather about EPA’s own conclusions and methodology. EPA essentially confirmed (by way of omission) that it had not consulted WOGCC for its report, which suggests the EPA either didn’t think to seek adequate guidance, or deliberately ignored a state regulatory body in a report that focused on a process regulated by that body.

And, by making politically charged accusation that hydraulic fracturing “likely” caused water contamination, the EPA has undermined its own credibility with its broader national study on hydraulic fracturing. Will that study suffer from the same systemic and methodological flaws as the Pavillion report? Will the EPA seek proper guidance and provide transparent testing results? Will it contain statements about hydraulic fracturing that are more befitting of a political debate than scientific inquiry? Will the EPA once again have to backpedal from its initial “findings,” as it was forced to do in the hearings today? The fact that those questions even have to be asked, and indeed are being asked, is troubling in and of itself.

Regarding the Pavillion report and the EPA’s credibility on hydraulic fracturing, Doll from the WOGCC perhaps summed it up best. “Based on a limited sampling and an inconclusive data set from Pavillion Wyoming ground water, EPA’s conclusion is now national and international fodder for the hydraulic fracturing debate,” Doll said. “Now the quality of the hydraulic fracturing debate suffers and the EPA’s science itself is questioned.”

Clearly, the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to access our nation’s vast natural gas reserves from shale is paying enormous dividends, not just in terms of job creation – 600,000 jobs, to be more specific – but also in consumer savings. As Hank Linginfelter, executive vice president of AGL Resource Inc., noted, “I think of shale gas as a real game-changer for consumers of natural gas. It’s having a significant impact on prices.”

Looking forward, natural gas consumers can expect to see an average annual household savings of $926 between 2012 and 2015.  But today — whether is a new pair of shoes, a Valentine’s Day gift not made out of chocolate, or just a nice chunk of change in your pocket — the benefits of natural gas development from shale are being felt by millions of consumers across the nation.

As today’s Bloomberg article noted,

“Natural gas prices that slumped to a 10-year low this month could save U.S. consumers $16.5 billion on home energy bills over the course of a year, according to a senior economist at the U.S. Federal Reserve. U.S. households might see total savings from lower gas prices of as much as $113 billion a year through 2015, including tack-on effects such as lower product prices and higher wages generated by cheaper fuel, according to energy industry consultants IHS Inc…

Consumers will likely spend about 95 percent of the direct savings they see from their gas bills, said Bernard Weinstein, associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. While that amount is a fraction of the $10.245 trillion in consumer spending for 2010, ‘it’s a step in the right direction,’ Solow said.” (1/26/12)

To date, natural gas production has stimulated our economy, catalyzed job growth, and increased our domestic energy base.  Now it is providing real and tangible benefits to our pocketbooks. As production continues to grow—with 1.2 million wells hydraulically fractured to date—it seems evermore clear that it is in the best interest of our nation and our consumers to support the safe and responsible development of natural gas from shale.

–

According to most geologists, shale has been a natural geological feature of the earth’s outermost crust for about two billion years now, give or take a couple hundred million.  But would you believe it? In all that time, the word “shale” had never been mentioned in a State of the Union address delivered by an American president (in fairness, the office of U.S. president hasn’t been around quite that long).

Well, it had to happen eventually. And last night, that two-billion-year-long-no-mention streak finally came to an end, with President Obama devoting a significant segment of his nationally (and internationally) televised address to touting the promise and potential of developing America’s enormous natural gas resources — particularly those in “shale rock” — as the foundation for an energy policy that’s “cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.” From the speech:

“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years,” the President stated, “And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.  Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.” The President went on to say that expanded natural gas development will “create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.”

But unlike the numerous throwaway lines in all too many political speeches and presidential statements, the president’s words about natural gas were clearly a major component of his address, and news outlets from across the country took notice. Below is a snapshot of what major media had to say about the speech, specifically the president’s endorsement of the responsible development of natural gas from shale:

• Reuters, “Obama backs shale gas drilling”

President Barack Obama on Tuesday pledged support for the U.S. shale gas boom, but said government must focus on safe development of the energy resource.

In his State of the Union address, Obama called for government to develop a roadmap for responsible shale gas production and said his administration would move forward with “common-sense” new rules to make sure drillers protect the public.

“America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk,” Obama said.

• UPI, “Obama heralds domestic natural gas”

Obama, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said natural gas was one of the foundations for U.S. energy security. He said there’s enough natural gas in the country to meet domestic demand for 100 years but companies working to exploit those reserves must do so responsibly.

• Washington Post,”In State of the Union Address, Obama says he will push forward with fracking”

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Obama spoke optimistically about the bounty of unconventional natural gas under the eastern United States. “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years,” Obama said, “and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.” This is good news, pretty much no matter where you land on the political spectrum.

• Bloomberg, “Obama Pushes Natural-Gas Fracking to Create 600,000 Jobs”

President Barack Obama pushed drilling for gas in shale rock and support for cleaner energy sources to boost the economy in his final State of the Union address before facing U.S. voters in November.

Hydraulic fracturing, the process of injecting water, sand and chemicals underground to free gas trapped in rock, could create more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade, Obama said yesterday. The process, called fracking, is among a list of energy policies Obama said would fuel economic growth.

“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy,” Obama said.

• POLITICO, “Obama steals GOP’s ‘all of the above’ energy slogan”

Obama also highlighted the economic potential from tapping into the nation’s natural gas supplies, citing independent reports showing the industry could support about 600,000 jobs over the next decade…”This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy — a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper and full of new jobs,” Obama said to rousing applause from Republicans in the House chamber.

Cleaner. Cheaper. More affordable. And insanely abundant. At a time when most folks on Capitol Hill today can’t even agree on what they disagree on, responsible development of American energy resources represents that rarest of ideas in Washington that appear to make sense to just about everyone across the political continuum. Heck, even Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), previously (and currently?) a critic of Marcellus development in his state, told reporters after the speech that he “was glad for the focus on natural gas. It’s a big benefit to Pennsylvania. We’ve got a great natural resource with lots of jobs.”

And he wasn’t the only one talking shale last night. Click around below to see what other folks had to say:

Virginia “Gigi” Lazenby, Chairman, Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA):

“Our industry, made up of mostly very small- and medium-sized businesses, applauds the president for his stated commitment to expanding the responsible development of job-creating American oil and natural gas. As the president made clear this evening, job creation and the restoration of the American dream is a shared goal that exceeds political boundaries. As the president underscored, our nation continues to increase its domestic oil and gas production, creating thousands of well-paying, private sector jobs, providing much-needed relief and savings for struggling consumers and stimulating an otherwise anemic economy.”

Jack Gerard, President and CEO, American Petroleum Institute:

“The administration has an opportunity to turn energy policy in a direction that could provide huge benefits to our economy. And if the President is sincere in this, our industry will work very hard with him to make it happen.” (NOTE: Gerard also added, “If the President is serious about creating more jobs and more energy, allow America’s oil and natural gas companies to produce more of our energy at home, and we’ll put people to work and deliver more revenue to the government. That’s what the American people want.”)

Statement from America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA):

“Tonight’s speech builds on the White House report earlier this month documenting the broad impact that natural gas production can have on investment and job creation across leading sectors of our economy. A range of U.S. industries and their workers are more competitive today thanks to our nation’s vast, affordable natural gas supplies. Along with these opportunities come lower energy costs for consumers and cleaner air.”

Kathryn Klaber, President, Marcellus Shale Coalition:

“We are encouraged that President Obama recognizes the tremendous energy security, environmental, and economic benefits associated with job-creating American shale gas development fueled overwhelmingly through private investment on privately-owned lands. And while presidents of both parties have made a clarion call for more American energy over the past four decades, it is our genuine hope that President Obama’s remarks tonight are reflected in his Administration’s policies that are rooted in sound science and move forward with an aim of leveraging our nation’s abundant natural gas resources on behalf of consumers, families, and small businesses. American natural gas will continue to make our nation stronger and more secure.”

Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, American Gas Association:

“If there was ever a fuel in the right place at the right time, it is natural gas in 2012 and beyond. We’re glad to see the President acknowledge the many benefits natural gas provides for our energy future, not just in the State of the Union Address but also in his latest jobs report…By continuing to increase the use of natural gas, we can make progress on our national priorities of helping to improve our economy, reduce environmental impacts and secure our nation’s energy future.”

Brad Gill, Executive Director, Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York (IOGA of NY):

“In his State of the Union Address Tuesday, President Obama spoke of the important role domestic oil and natural gas will have in securing the nation’s energy future and economic recovery. Using newer technologies to harvest homegrown energy is a vital component in job creation and commerce by powering businesses and ‘factories that are cleaner and cheaper’… The President’s energy policy acknowledges the 600,000 jobs that natural gas production will help create over the next decade. His messages must be heard and considered in New York as the state moves toward allowing safe natural gas development in the Southern Tier.”

Dan Fitzsimmons, President, Joint Landowners Coalition of New York (JLCNY):

“In tonight’s SOTU address, President Obama affirmed that we don’t have to choose between our economy and the environment in developing shale gas.  The president committed the Administration to taking ‘every possible action to safely develop this energy.’  The landowners of NY state stand ready to support this call to action.”