WASHINGTON – Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will begin a new, comprehensive study on hydraulic fracturing, the critical and heavily regulated 60-year old technology used to stimulate energy production in 9 out of 10 wells throughout the United States. Following the announcement, Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy In Depth, released this statement:

“We are hopeful and it is our expectation that this study – if based on objective, scientific analysis – will serve as an opportunity to highlight the host of steps taken at every wellsite that make certain groundwater is properly protected. The energy industry, as well as state regulatory agencies, are eager to work with EPA throughout this fact-based examination. Further, efforts underway in Congress to give EPA outright authority to regulate fracturing – which could hamper domestic energy production and job growth – should come to a standstill until this study is completed.

“Adding another study to the impressive list of those that have already been conducted and completed is a welcome exercise. Hydraulic fracturing is one of the U.S. oil and gas industry’s crowning achievements, enabling us to produce energy supplies at enormous depths with surgical precision and unrivaled environmental safety records. And, simply put, new innovations are making these technologies better and better by the day – a fact widely recognized by the agencies that regulate hydraulic fracturing in energy-producing states.

“Fracturing has a long and clear record of safely leveraging otherwise unreachable homegrown, clean-burning, job-creating energy reserves. Today, the responsible development of America’s shale gas resources represents a crucial turning point for our nation’s long-term energy security. Hydraulic fracturing is the tool that can safely make this possible, and can continue to help lead us on a path toward stronger energy independence and economic competitiveness.”

READ MORE

• EPA Report on HF: “No credible evidence” that hydraulic fracturing endangers groundwater
• Top EPA Water Official: No “documented cases that the hydro-fracking process was contaminating water supplies”
• Memo: Bipartisan Natural Gas Caucus regarding hydraulic fracturing
• GWPC Study: State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources
• Senate Hearing: Top Brass from Obama Admin Tell Congress They’re “Not Aware” of Even “One Case” of HF-Related Contamination
• Issue Alert: When Gummy Bears Attack
• Graphic: What’s In Frac Fluids?
• Browner Memo: Letter of Support for Hydraulic Fracturing from Carol Browner, Fmr. EPA Administrator

The movie – which is supported by a host of mainstream organizations (sarcasm people) such as the Damascus Citizens, Earth Justice, Environmental Working Group, National Resources Defense Council, Oil and Gas Accountability Project – was on the receiving end of a minute-by-minute Energy In Depth fact-check last night via Twitter.

And today, experts and scientists from just about every university in Pittsburgh (except Point Park) and a petroleum engineer with a PhD weigh-in on effective, environmentally sound, well-regulated natural gas production through the use of hydraulic fracturing.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Rick Stouffer reports this under the headline “Gas companies eager to tap Marcellus Shale”:

This rush to develop the Marcellus region, which has an abundance of the fossil fuel 6,000 feet below much of the state, could lead to an influx of new companies in Western Pennsylvania to take advantage of low-cost energy and a boom in blue-collar jobs, the experts said.

“This region will become self-sufficient in terms of energy. There’s enough natural gas in the Marcellus to power this state for 180 years,” said Kent Moors, director of Duquesne University’s Energy Policy Research Group.

Carnegie Mellon’s Lester Lave says a “blue-collar boom” in western Pennsylvania is on the way, thanks to fracturing:

“Short term, there will be fair number of jobs developed in this area to drill the wells,” said Lester Lave, a Carnegie Mellon University professor and co-director of the university’s Electricity Industry Center.

Long term, Lave believes the lure of cheap, close-by natural gas could make this region the place to relocate for those needing cheap power to operate.

“You could have a blue-collar boom here. Cheap gas really could stimulate industry, everything from glass making, to fertilizer, to power plants — a lot of industries run on cheap fuel,” Lave said.
A Penn State University study last year projected that Marcellus-related activity by 2020 could translate into $13.5 billion of economic impact and nearly 175,000 related jobs.

Prof. Lave adds that fracturing does not affect groundwater “because it’s performed well below the water table”:

“I don’t think fracking bothers the water table because it’s performed well below the water table,” Lave said. “Companies use a lot of water to frack, but Pennsylvania has been blessed with a lot of water, so I don’t think we will run into a lot of water problems.”

And in a Binghamton, NY Press & Sun Bulletin column today, Scott Cline – a PhD in petroleum engineering – writes this under the headline “The Coming Age of Natural Gas”:

Heretofore unimagined technologies have now thrust themselves upon human history that will permit the safe extraction of this relatively clean domestic energy resource from the tight grip of the earth. The sheer abundance will also provide long-term downward price pressure on energy making the structural shift even more compelling. Miraculously America sits atop much of those resources and the fruits of that extraction will once again help propel America to energy prosperity and security. Dominant global competitive advantage, jobs, tax revenue and prosperity may result for many generations to come.

Dr. Cline adds writes this about unsubstantiated claims regarding the environmental impacts of shale gas development, like the ones featured in GasLand:

Fears of environmental ruin, undrinkable water, pollution and the like are largely unfounded, exaggerated and commingled with uninformed concerns about processes not unique to shale gas development. Horizontal drilling and [fracture] stimulation is safe.

While the public still debates and frets, industry has been busy and is already quickly approaching near 100% reuse and recycling of waste water through high technology filtering and treatment technologies using relatively little energy.

The movie, with a run-time of 107 minutes, elicited nearly 30 separate entries from EID on its Twitter page online (that’s one tweet every 3.8 minutes!). Below is a transcript of the night’s proceedings:

1. live blogging from “gasland” showing — the anti-natural gas film. stay tune for more! about 16 hours ago via mobile web
2. josh fox told us no copies for sale – guess he doesnt want an EID fact ck about 16 hours ago via mobile web
3. gasland claims frac fluids unknown – ck pa’s website, and EID for these fluids, made of 99 about 16 hours ago via mobile web
4. percent water and sand. fact about 16 hours ago via mobile web
5. josh should know theres good info on gas drilling at EID, if hes truly interested about 16 hours ago via mobile web
6. gasland claim: 05 energy bill exempted HF. fact: HF has never been reg by the feds. ever. about 15 hours ago via mobile web
7. no mention of recycled water technologies in gasland — why are we not surprised? about 15 hours ago via mobile web
8. gasland interviews thoe colborn: call the credibility police about 15 hours ago via mobile web
9. again, frac fluids not “secret” – visit EID to find em all about 15 hours ago via mobile web
10. colborn: gas producers dont know whats in frac fluids. what are MSDS sheets again? about 15 hours ago via mobile web
11. gasland demonizes US energy industry … very sad, esp since 9 million americans work in the industry about 15 hours ago via mobile web
12. his barnett “expert”? an envir defense fund academic. just the facts, huh? about 15 hours ago via mobile web
13. enter mayor tillman … we had a feeling about 15 hours ago via mobile web
14. tillman’s own “study” cited in gasland. remember, the one thats been flatly dismissed? about 15 hours ago via mobile web
15. attack on LA’s oil, gas industry. wonder what the 50k folks there that work in industry think? about 15 hours ago via mobile web
16. gasland cites fish killed in dunkard creek. too bad EPA’s dismissed that one, too. about 15 hours ago via mobile web
17. gasland says PADEP had massive staff cutbacks. fact: rendell just added 68 new staff to oversee gas production about 15 hours ago via mobile web
18. gasland claim: frac act simply removes HF “exemption.” fact: HF has never been regulated by EPA about 14 hours ago via mobile web
19. DeGette the darling of gasland. about 14 hours ago via mobile web
20. degette mischaracterizes own bill. says frac just about “disclosure.” failed to mention epa would have to issue permits about 14 hours ago via mobile web
21. audience howls at petroleum distillates. wonder if anyone here is eating gummy bears? about 14 hours ago via mobile web
22. @LoveCanal2020 05 bipartisan energy bill clarified congress’ original intent of SDWA. fact. about 14 hours ago via mobile web
23. also, dont forget fmr epa chief browner’s letter in 95 saying HF never reg by fed govt. ck EID for memo about 14 hours ago via mobile web
24. josh fox says nat gas industry operating without regulations. news to us. about 14 hours ago via
25. woman asks: is robert kennedy jr doing anything to ban HF, since he has a record of going after EPA? interesting. about 14 hours ago via mobile web
26. ask if prices will go up if frac act is passed? fox says yes. he’s right for once tonight about 14 hours ago via mobile web
27. fox says “everywhere he went he saw water contamination” — where exactly did he go again? about 14 hours ago via mobile web
28. hanna from philly bashing corbet for supporting gas production. does hanna know shale gas created 48k jobs last yr in PA about 14 hours ago via mobile web

READ MORE

• WHAT THEY’RE SAYING: America’s Shale Gas, with Help from Hydraulic Fracturing, Turning “Rags into Riches”
• Release: EID Statement on House Inquiry into Safe, Responsible Use of Hydraulic Fracturing
• Frac In Depth: For more than 60 years, America’s energy producers have relied on hydraulic fracturing
• Fact Sheet: HF Opponents Say the Darndest Things
• Issue Alert: When Gummy Bears Attack
• GWPC Study: State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources
• Graphic: What’s In Frac Fluids?

Shale gas development, enabled by new, cutting-edge horizontal drilling techniques coupled with the 60-year old energy production technology called hydraulic fracturing, is helping to unlock America’s estimated 100 years supply of clean-burning natural gas. This fracturing process requires relatively large amounts of water, however. And just as technologies in the telecommunications, healthcare and automotive industries continue to advance, getting better and smarter, so too are technologies required for producing homegrown, job-creating energy reserves. These advancements – which continue to progress almost daily – help safeguard air, water and overall environmental quality, and bring down operating costs, too.

Paul Ziemkiewicz and Jen Fulton, environmental scientists at West Virginia University’s Water Research Institute are “trying to find a better, more environmentally sound way to drill for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation,” with assistance from the U.S. Department of Energy. West Virginia Public Broadcasting’s Emily Corio reports this today under the headline “Researchers test way to reuse Marcellus drilling water”:

“Marcellus Shale gas development in West Virginia is going to explode over the next couple of years that is the rate of gas development, the size of the reserve; it’s just going to be a very big new industry for the state,” said Ziemkiewicz, director of the Water Research Institute. “Dealing with the water issue is something we need to do up front rather than wait till we have to play catch up and we’ve really got some problems.”

Companies can now drill in Marcellus shale because of a relatively new technique called hydraulic fracturing where water is forced down into a gas well; the shale is fractured from the water pressure and sand is used to prop open the cracks so the natural gas can escape.

Ziemkiewicz says the filter system they’re testing would not clean the water so that it could be returned to waterways but he says the water would be clean enough for drillers to reuse it.

Jen Fulton, program coordinator with the Water Research Institute, says companies are interested in the research because they’re spending a lot of money trucking the water to underground injection site or special treatment plants.

“We’ve gotten a lot of enthusiasm from the industry because they want to be able to reuse the water onsite. They, at this point, need to collect fresh water and bring it to the next site they go to so if they could just use the water they already have, it would really help,” Fulton said.

While these technological advancements are encouraging, many operators – especially in the Marcellus Shale – are already recycling 100 percent of the water used in the hydraulic fracturing process.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported this back in October under the headline “Range Resources recycles all waste water from Washington drilling”:

Range Resources Corp. announced today that it is now recycling all of the waste water produced by its natural gas drilling operations. … “Range’s recycling program is helping to eliminate wastewater, lower drilling costs, reduce consumptive water needs by 25 percent, and lessen local truck traffic,” said Jeff Ventura, Range’s president and chief operating officer, in a statement. … Recycling won’t be the only long-term water treatment option in reducing waste water from drilling, but it will play a significant role, Ventura added.

State regulators are well-aware of these recycling efforts, as well. In fact, in New York State’s draft regulatory blueprint for shale gas production, this is laid out on page 495 of the document:

It is beneficial to the operators to implement water conservation and recycling practices because of the potential difficulties obtaining the large volumes of water needed for hydraulic fracturing. Most or all operators will recycle or reuse flowback water to reduce the need for fresh water.

The Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection’s Allen Eichler said this about water use and treatment, as it relates to fracturing, in February:

Now most of the fluids in the process are either lost in the formation or recycled.

And in a February release, the Marcellus Shale Coalition stated this about recycled water efforts:

The industry currently treats or recycles all of its flowback water. Recycling accounts for approximately 60 percent of the water used to complete Marcellus Shale wells, with greater percentages predicted for the future. There are more than a dozen approved water treatment facilities available to treat flowback water, with plans for additional capacity in the future.

WASHINGTON – Less than a month after Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) sent letters to nine separate service companies seeking additional information on the processes and technologies involved in producing America’s enormous reserves of clean-burning shale gas, U.S. Reps. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) and Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) submitted a letter of their own this past week, reminding the chairman that shale gas is a “proven and powerful engine of economic growth – and one this Congress idles at the peril of those it represents.”

After reviewing the letter, Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy In Depth, released the following statement:

“With more attention being paid on Capitol Hill to the critical role that shale gas can play in securing our nation’s economic and environmental future, it’s natural that additional questions will be raised, and additional information will need to be provided so that lawmakers have access to all the facts, and a full appreciation of the context within which they reside. This letter from Congressmen Boren and Murphy addresses both of those needs, all while filling-in several factual and historical holes that were unfortunately left agape subsequent to the release of the Waxman memorandum.”

The following excerpts were taken directly from the Boren/Murphy letter, which can be downloaded in full here:

On Jobs:

“Consider that in just the past few years, more than 100,000 high-wage jobs have been created in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania alone, all of them tied to the responsible development of American natural gas, and every bit of that made possible thanks to the safe and steady deployment of fracturing technology.”

“At a time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, and in a year in which four million Americans lost their jobs, shale gas exploration represents a proven and powerful engine of economic growth – and one this Congress idles at the peril of those it represents.”

On Shortcomings of the Waxman Memo:

“While a number of the elements contained in your memorandum appear to be sufficiently-researched and adequately sourced, we were nonetheless disappointed to find in the eleven-page document only a single reference to the landmark 2004 study on hydraulic fracturing done by EPA, a reference that does not even acknowledge the core findings and conclusions of the actual report.”

On Relationship between Committee Investigation and EPA’s Pending Study:

“While the agency has yet to formally release details indicating the scope and methodology of that research, it seems likely that much of the information you intend to gather pursuant to your investigation will also be sought, compiled and analyzed by EPA. It’s our hope that you work does not in any way interfere with that process, and our expectation that your course of study meets the same rigorous standards of science, evaluation and peer-review as historically observed by the agency.”

On Waxman Assertion that Fracturing Solutions are Unknown:

“[C]ertainly you must know that federal law mandates that Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) be kept on-hand at every wellsite in America when chemicals are present, and further, that those sheets include an accounting of the identities of those chemicals with identified risks used in the fracturing process.  Indeed, the vast majority of these information sheets can be found readily and easily on the Internet. As you indicate, a number of states today post this information in full view of the public online.”

On the Critical Role that Well Integrity Plays in Safeguarding Drinking Water:

“Unfortunately, those who support the FRAC Act appear to believe the mere existence of small amounts of chemical additives in the fracturing solution represents a circumstance sufficient for public drinking water supplies to become contaminated.

“The reality, however, is that these materials are well known to those who regulate the process, and are managed in a way that eliminates virtually any risk of those components coming into contact with shallow reservoirs bearing potable water. Wells drilled today incorporate thousands of feet (and many layers) of steel casing, and thousands of pounds of cement – every bit of that installed using a time-tested engineering process and precise instrumentation to ensure what’s happening inside the wellbore remains in complete isolation from what naturally exists outside of it.”

Click here to view the letter online.

READ MORE

• Top EPA Water Official: No “documented cases that the hydro-fracking process was contaminating water supplies”
• EPA Report on HF: “No credible evidence” that hydraulic fracturing endangers groundwater
• Senate Hearing: Top Brass from Obama Admin Tell Congress They’re “Not Aware” of Even “One Case” of HF-Related Contamination
• Fact Sheet: HF Opponents Say the Darndest Things
• Issue Alert: When Gummy Bears Attack
• Graphic: What’s In Frac Fluids?
• Browner Memo: Letter of Support for Hydraulic Fracturing from Carol Browner, Fmr. EPA Administrator

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.

Be honest: Do you fall into one of these categories? If so, please, read on. Turns out a recent memo to Congressman Henry Waxman – chairman of the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee – from the co-chairs of the bipartisan House Natural Gas Caucus gives an unvarnished overview of fracturing’s long and clear record of safety and transparency. In the memo authored by Congressmen Dan Boren (Okla.) and Tim Murphy (Pa.), the duo writes this at it relates to fracturing fluids:

“[C]ertainly you must know that federal law mandates that Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) be kept on-hand at every wellsite in America when chemicals are present, and further, that those sheets include an accounting of the identities of those chemicals with identified risks used in the fracturing process.  Indeed, the vast majority of these information sheets can be found readily and easily on the Internet. As you indicate, a number of states today post this information in full view of the public online.”

Shale gas development, enabled by properly-regulated hydraulic fracturing, continues to be a potent job-creation engine, even during this generational economic downturn. To that, the congressmen write:

“Consider that in just the past few years, more than 100,000 high-wage jobs have been created in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania alone, all of them tied to the responsible development of American natural gas, and every bit of that made possible thanks to the safe and steady deployment of fracturing technology.”

“At a time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, and in a year in which four million Americans lost their jobs, shale gas exploration represents a proven and powerful engine of economic growth – and one this Congress idles at the peril of those it represents.”

As for the FRAC Act – that would for the first time in U.S. history give the federal government carte blanch to regulated hydraulic fracturing – the Natural Gas Caucus co-chairmen lay out these facts:

“Unfortunately, those who support the FRAC Act appear to believe the mere existence of small amounts of chemical additives in the fracturing solution represents a circumstance sufficient for public drinking water supplies to become contaminated.

“The reality, however, is that these materials are well known to those who regulate the process, and are managed in a way that eliminates virtually any risk of those components coming into contact with shallow reservoirs bearing potable water. Wells drilled today incorporate thousands of feet (and many layers) of steel casing, and thousands of pounds of cement – every bit of that installed using a time-tested engineering process and precise instrumentation to ensure what’s happening inside the wellbore remains in complete isolation from what naturally exists outside of it.”

So what are other independent professionals, regulators and major newspapers saying about hydraulic fracturing? In a Buffalo News column today entitled “We must take full advantage of Marcellus Shale,” petroleum geologist David Copley writes this:

“Notwithstanding exaggerated fears of damage to ground water systems, the ramp-up in shale-gas production has been the best economic and environmental news in years. Thanks to the use of new drilling techniques combined with a decades-old process known as hydraulic fracturing, energy companies are now able to access deposits of shale gas that were considered out of reach a few years ago. … New York State is also beefing up its regulation of hydraulic fracturing to ensure that the risk to ground water supplies is extremely remote. In fact, there have not been any documented cases of ground water contamination from hydraulic fracturing, according to Steve Heare, director of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Drinking Water Protection Division.

In yesterday’s Gillette (WY) News Record, Tom Doll, supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, says “Federal regulation is unnecessary because Wyoming already closely regulates it.” This from the article:

“We feel that we should administer our rules and regulate this and we don’t need the help of the federal government in this regard,” Doll said. “We’re doing a good job.” Federal regulations on top of state regulations would cause a lot more time and money for drilling companies that is unnecessary. Strengthening Wyoming’s rule might help keep that from happening.

And today’s Houston Chronicle, under the headline “The natural gas story,” the paper editorializes that fracturing can help “create jobs, lessen dependence on foreign energy, cut our defense costs, change our balance-of-payments picture for the better and make our air cleaner.”

WASHINGTON – Shale gas exploration “ranks as the most significant energy innovation so far this century” according to a report published by IHS/Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) and released this week in Houston – and hydraulic fracturing, the decades-old technology that’s being used today to unlock these unconventional resources, has “always been regulated at the state level” ably, aggressively and while ensuring proper safeguard for air, water and the surrounding environment.

Subsequent to the release of the report, Energy In Depth executive director Lee Fuller issued the following statement:

“It’s long been said that America’s enormous shale gas resources have the potential to fundamentally recast our nation’s energy and economic future for the better; today’s report from CERA provides new evidence that such a transformation is already well underway. It also reminds us to what we owe the recognition for making this energy revolution possible – specifically, the critical role that hydraulic fracturing technology continues to play in positioning our country to seize on these historic opportunities.

“More relevant to the underlying policy debate, though, is the information in this report highlighting the processes, procedures and regulations in place to ensure this work continues to be done safely and while protecting and preserving the surrounding environment. Contrary to the suggestions of some, hydraulic fracturing is not a new technology, it’s not an untested one, and it’s certainly not a process exempt from stringent regulation. The reality is actually quite the opposite, and this report tells that story in a detailed and comprehensive way – and one that’s accessible for a broader audience.”

What follows are several of the key excerpts culled from the study:

On Supply, Price, Jobs:

Shale gas exploration “ranks as the most significant energy innovation so far this century … It has the potential, at least, of a paradigm shift in the fueling of North America’s energy future.”

“At the national level IHS Global Insight has estimated that the overall natural gas industry employed 550,000 workers in 2008 and was responsible for the creation of an additional 2.4 million jobs in supporting industries, adding over $400 billion to the US economy.”

“The abundance and relative low cost of the natural gas resource base have transformative implications for North American natural gas markets.”

“In fact the robust prospects for shale gas will help to stabilize long-term natural gas markets.”

On Water Use:

“Shale gas production is considerably less water intensive than other types of energy production. Ten times as much water is used to produce the equivalent amount of energy from coal, and ethanol production can use as much as a thousand times more water to yield the same amount of energy.”

On Water Safety:

“Shale gas deposits are typically located several thousand feet below the deepest potential underground source of drinking water, and the low permeability of shale rock and other intervening formations restricts upward flow of fraccing fluids into drinking water aquifers.”

“At present there is no evidence that liquids used for hydraulic fracturing of deep shales can migrate upward to contaminate drinking water aquifers, and there are strong geological arguments to the contrary.”

“Oil and gas operations are widespread throughout North America and drinking water supplies have been appropriately safeguarded from contamination from these activities for many years. This suggests that the risks can be managed and that shale gas development can proceed safely, with proper industry management and regulatory safeguards in place.”

On State Regulation:

“Hydraulic fracturing has always been regulated at the state level by the agencies that regulate all natural gas production in the state.”

“The focus of state regulation is the protection of groundwater resources, and the mechanism for this protection is proper well construction.”

“A properly installed well includes steel casing surrounded by concrete to separate the well from freshwater aquifers above the shale gas zone. The surface casing extends at least 50 to 100 feet below the deepest potential source of drinking water—the required depth is established by regulations in each state. Regulatory inspections ensure that the well is structurally sound before fracturing occurs.”

On the Environment:

“The positive environmental attributes of shale gas are many. … The climate change benefits of natural gas get the most attention, but emissions of local air pollutants also decrease, including sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and particulates.”

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)

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?