Posts Tagged ‘anti-hydraulic fracturing’
In response to a recent Grand Junction Sentinel editorial, “A Democratic fracture over fracking,” Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama’s executive director, Dennis Lathem, penned an insightful and fact-filled column on the long and proven record of state regulation over hydraulic fracturing.
In his column, “Fracking has always been regulated,” Lathem lays out a compelling case as to why federal, one-size-fits-all legislation to regulate fracking is the wrong approach, as states have safely and effectively overseen this practice for decades. And while some anti-energy opponents continue to muddy the facts, particularly related to what was, and what was not, in the bipartisan 2005 energy bill, this column debunks each and every one of these false claims. Here are key excerpts from Mr. Lathem’s piece:
ON THE ‘EXEMPTION’
- Hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The 2005 Energy Policy Act contained language clarifying this intent. The language was necessary because a federal circuit court ruled (incorrectly in my opinion) the temporary process of hydraulic fracturing is the same as the permanent disposal of wastes underground and is therefore covered by the SDWA.
- The fact is, if the language clarifying hydraulic fracturing had not been in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, every state in the union would be in exactly the same regulatory posture as they are today, except Alabama.
ON STATE REGULATION
- Many of those trying to stop this safe (50-year) industry practice would have everyone believe that hydraulic fracturing is not regulated at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. State oil and gas and environmental regulatory agencies are in control of this practice and have been for decades.
- In Alabama, we have very stringent regulations and procedures that must be followed before an operator receives authorization to fracture a coal seam.
- Authorization to fracture is dependent upon proper well construction, cementing of steel casing to isolate everything except the target formation and the plan and design of the fracturing process. The fracturing process itself is monitored (in real time) at the surface by personnel trained specifically for this type of well treatment.
ON FRACING’S IMPORTANCE
- We would not be able to produce natural gas from coal in Alabama without first hydraulic fracturing the coal. At present, 43 percent of all natural gas produced in our state comes from coal seams that have been hydraulically fractured.
- America needs oil and gas to fuel our economy. Federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing will lead down only one path -the path to no more hydraulic fracturing and the collapse of new oil and gas supply in our country at a time when we need it the most. Hundreds of thousands of citizen taxpayers will lose their jobs and billions of dollars in royalty payments and taxes will be lost.
Reinforcing Mr. Lathem’s fact-based analysis, Lee Fuller, Energy In Depth’s policy director, appeared in yesterday’s Politico to correct the record on a recent advocacy piece from ProPublica that failed to acknowledge critical facts. Here are highlights of Fuller’s response:
- “Congress is considering legislation,” writes Lustgarten, “to restore the EPA’s oversight” over hydraulic fracturing. But how could that be, if the Environmental Protection Agency never exercised authority over the process in the first place?
- State agencies, not the federal government, have aggressively regulated the process from the start. And states want to retain this proven track record of regulatory oversight, having passed bipartisan resolutions in Alabama, Louisiana, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma and Texas declaring as much.
- Hydraulic fracturing has been in use for more than 60 years. In that time, not a single documented case of drinking water contamination has been credibly tied to it. Not bad, considering that 1.3 million wells have been fractured over that span.
Continued>>
Last week, when Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) told an energy conference organized by the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, that he “encouraged Congresswoman DeGette to consider authorizing a comprehensive study of [hydraulic fracturing] instead of going directly to a new and potentially intrusive regulatory program,” Colorado newspapers, including the states largest daily publication, the Denver Post, took notice.
From today’s Post editorial:
- “The vigorous debate over hydraulic fracturing – an oil and gas extraction technique – has raised an important question that must be answered before federal lawmakers consider additional regulation. In short, has the process of pumping fracturing fluid into the ground to release oil and gas contaminated drinking water? Gov. Bill Ritter this week urged U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, to take her foot off the accelerator on regulatory efforts, suggesting further study first. We think that’s a prudent policy move.
Other papers are taking notice as well, and starting to ask tough questions about whether Rep. DeGette is trying to put the cart before the horse in promoting both a new study of hydraulic fracturing, and legislation to impose unprecedented new regulation on it. Put another way: Shouldn’t legislation, if pursued at all, come AFTER the issue is studied in greater depth? And not before? Not to put too fine a point on it, how can you claim to give a hoot about what a study might say about the efficacy of the current law if you’ve already committed yourself to re-writing it?
As usual, the Grand Junction paper picks up on this important theme as well:
Grand Junction Sentinel, Editorial: “A Democratic fracture over fracking”
- “Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter is at odds with Congresswoman Diana DeGette and other Democrats in Congress over the need for federal legislation to regulate chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, a process used to improve the recovery of oil and gas from wells. Ritter, reasonably enough, thinks DeGette’s proposed legislation could be an impediment to the development of our natural gas and is largely unnecessary because new state rules address fracking chemicals. We’re with the governor on this. Several federal studies under both Republican and Democratic administrations found no link between fracking chemicals and contamination of drinking water. That’s why it was excluded from the federal Safe Water Drinking Act in the first place.
- “Furthermore, it makes sense, as Ritter said he told DeGette, to let each state develop the rules it believes best suits its needs rather than adopt one-size-fits-all federal regulations. DeGette, unfortunately, seems committed to pushing her fracking legislation, regardless of what the governor and local government officials in Colorado want.
- “But we’re glad to see Ritter is willing to stand up to a senior member of his party in Colorado, and tell DeGette that her fracking bill is the wrong prescription for this state.”
Continued>>
Earlier this week, ProPublica author Abrahm Lustgarten released the latest installment in his series of advocacy pieces attacking the commonly used energy technology known as hydraulic fracturing. Instead of simply running on the ProPublica blog and website, however, the article was co-published with Politico and appeared in the paper’s news section (a letter to the editor from Energy In Depth policy director Lee Fuller will appear in the paper this Tuesday).
It wasn’t the first time that a mainstream news outlet provided ProPublica with a platform for this kind of product – although, for papers such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the determination has been made that ProPublica articles, when run, are more appropriately filed on its “opinion/perspectives” page than as part of its straight-news reporting.
Prior to its release, Energy In Depth spoke at length with Mr. Lustgarten about the direction of the (presumably already written) piece and the myriad mistakes he was making in issuing a blanket indictment of recent government and third-party reports finding that EPA regulation of hydraulic fracturing would cost Americans jobs, revenues and future security.
Regrettably, none of those explanations made it into his final piece. What follows is our attempt to identify and correct the areas in which Mr. Lustgarten’s errors were most egregious:
PP: “Now, Congress is considering legislation to restore the EPA’s oversight of [hydraulic fracturing].”
Fact: Opponents of hydraulic fracturing understand well that the success of their anti-fracing campaign depends in large part on their ability to convince people that fracturing was previously regulated by the EPA, and that all they are therefore seeking to achieve is the full and fair restoration of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 to its previous self.
Set aside the fact that hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated by SDWA at any point in the 35-year history of the Act. Not only does Mr. Lustgarten continue to parrot this falsehood, but members of Congress and staff have begun to pick up on the theme as well:
Jeff Lieberson, a spokesman for [Rep. Maurice] Hinchey, said the IHS study should be discounted because it was not conducted independently. “It’s just ridiculous,” he said. “Their forecasting showing production going down dramatically doesn’t make sense, because all we’re trying to do is to go back to the way things were in 2004, before the loophole was inserted in the 2005 energy bill.” (6/1/09, Platts Gas Daily)
Of course, what Mr. Lieberson likely does not know – but Mr. Lustgarten likely does – is that “the way things were in 2004″ is identical to the way things are in 2009; that is, states continue to aggressively regulate the process of hydraulic fracturing, continue to have access to the all the information they need to exercise full oversight over the process, and continue to update and improve their regulations to reflect changes in landscape, science and new technology.
PP: “Furthermore, none of the tests listed in the table is mentioned in the text of the Safe Drinking Water Act …[a]nd they aren’t mentioned in the bill being floated in Congress, either.”
Translation: Studies that show EPA regulation over hydraulic fracturing could cost billions in lost revenues, lost wages, and lost energy production must necessarily be wrong – since there’s nothing in the DeGette/Casey anti-FRAC Act, or in the text of SDWA, that indentifies specific compliance measures that would need to be followed pursuant to the bill.
Fact: Very rarely does the text of any legislation, proposed or passed, include an explicit enumeration of the regulatory mechanics under which its stated mandate must be carried out (that’s what the regulatory agency and, if needed, the courts are for). In fact, EPA has promulgated rules that create five classes of Underground Injection Control wells and is now considering creating a sixth classification to address carbon sequestration. None of these are explicitly “mentioned in the text of the Safe Drinking Water Act”; all of them are solely the creation of EPA under its SDWA authority.
In the case of DeGette/Casey, section 2(a) of the bill clearly amends SDWA to include the regulation of hydraulic fracturing under its portfolio. With SDWA regulation comes the potential for EPA permit-authority over the process, a prospect that then-EPA administrator Carol Browner admitted was unnecessary in 1995. Current administrator Lisa Jackson is neither bound by, nor has she endorsed, that position.
Bottom line: Just because a detailed set of instructions for how, why, and when EPA should regulate fracturing wasn’t included in DeGette/Casey doesn’t mean that EPA, once allotted this new authority, won’t pursue it to the fullest possible extent – including the possibility of regulating fracturing activities under hyper-stringent Class I rules previously set aside for the permanent disposal and storage of the world’s most hazardous wastes (a proposal included in the Natural Resource Defense Council recommendations to Congress).
Nine out of 10 wells in America undergo fracturing to remain viable producers of energy – a process that happens hundreds of times a week, thousands of times a year, and more than 1.3 million times in all. Any effort to impose a new regulatory structure on a process as common and critical as that will necessarily produce serious consequences. And as studies from the Department of Energy, Ground Water Protection Council, and IHS Global Insight make plain, the disruption of this technology could lead to a significant loss in jobs, revenue and energy produced.
PP: “A close examination of the appendixes attached to the research also showed that 21 of the 31 states listed do not have any specific regulation addressing hydraulic fracturing.”
Translation: If the words “hydraulic” and “fracturing” aren’t included in consecutive sequence in a state’s regulatory handbook, it must be the case that the state does not regulate any aspect of the process whatsoever.
Fact: It is in fact possible (and indeed, common) for a government entity to claim regulatory authority over something that’s not explicitly enumerated in the text of the relevant statutory document (see: the “general welfare” clause of the U.S. Constitution). No one doubts, we hope, that the states of Pennsylvania, New York and Texas regulate hydraulic fracturing. But you won’t find the term “hydraulic fracturing” anywhere in their individual oil and gas regulations. Here’s what you will find (pg. 26):
Pennsylvania: “[T]he department shall have the authority to issue such orders as are necessary to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of [the oil and gas] act.” (58 P.S. section 601.503)
New York: “The drilling, casing and completion program adopted for any well shall be such as to prevent pollution. Pollution of the land and/or of surface or ground fresh water resulting from exploration or drilling is prohibited.” (6 NYCRR Part 554)
Texas: “No person conducting activities subject to regulation by the commission may cause or allow pollution of surface or subsurface water in the state.” (TAC 16.1.3.8)
“The states,” the Ground Water Protection Council found in its April 2009 report, “have broad powers to regulate, permit, and enforce all activities-the drilling and fracture of the well, production operations, management and disposal of wastes, and abandonment and plugging of the well.” Moreover: “[S]tate laws generally give the state oil and gas director or agency the discretion to require whatever is necessary to protect human health and the environment.”
In reality, the primary method for protecting ground and drinking water from contamination by natural gas wells – during both hydraulic fracturing and production activities – is the use of additional steel piping (casing) and cementing of the well bore above and below the ground water. ProPublica tries to discount the effectiveness of this proven management method by applying a superficial reading of various state regulations. The real tests are the 950,000 operating natural gas and oil wells throughout the United States that function daily with rare failures.
PP: “In May the Ground Water Protection Council, a group made up mostly of industry representatives and state oil and gas regulators….”
Translation: If industry is involved in an organization, it cannot be trusted.
Fact: The Ground Water Protection Council is “a national association of state ground water and underground injection control agencies whose mission is to promote the protection and conservation of ground water resources for all beneficial uses, recognizing ground water as a critical component of the ecosystem.”(from the GWPC web site). Industry members are not allowed on its board. Its committee members are primarily state officials, but can include both environmentalists and industry participants.
Unable to credibly undermine GWPC’s findings, ProPublica instead focuses on undermining the integrity of the institution itself, implying that its study should be discounted solely on the basis of its perception of industry influence. In fact, and as noted, the studies ProPublica references were conducted under funds provided by the Department of Energy.
Want to participate in the discussion? Click here to access the ProPublica piece on the Politico website; here to post a public comment on the piece; here to email a blog post to Energy In Depth; or here to send an email to Mr. Lustgarten.
Continued>>
As facts continue to circulate, and the public continues to learn more about the long, clear and uncompromising record of safety that hydraulic fracturing has built up over the past 60 years, local governments, columnists, and even left-of-center think tank-types continue to acknowledge that clean-burning American natural gas is key to creating jobs here at job home and increasing our nation’s security. And increasingly: they’re starting to recognize the critical role that hydraulic fracturing technology plays in making those gas resources possible.
Under the headline “Cities, counties oppose legislation on gas fracturing,” today’s Grand Junction Daily Senintel reports:
- “Opponents of a measure that would give federal authority over hydraulic fracturing for natural gas have marshaled opposition from several Western Slope counties and cities. The measure sponsored by Reps. Diana DeGette and Jared Polis, Democrats from Denver and Boulder, respectively, has yet to garner the support of the congressional representatives of the districts in which most fracturing occurs.“
- “Six counties, including Delta, Mesa, Moffat and Rio Blanco counties on the Western Slope, and Morgan and Weld counties in northern Colorado east of the Continental Divide, have adopted resolutions opposing the legislation.“
- “The towns of Delta, Naturita, Nucla, Rangely and Grand Junction oppose the bill. The measure … is “vague and not narrowly tailored to balance and protect the important local, state and domestic interests of resource exploration,” Grand Junction Mayor Bruce Hill said in a council-authorized letter to legislators. “Please do not allow a vague bill to be passed,” the Grand Junction letter said.”
Denver Post columnist, Vincent Carroll, goes even further in today’s paper. Under the headline “Fracking scare tactics,” Carroll opines this:
- “Want to give the federal government more power to regulate an industry? Start by telling scare stories to alarm the public and set the industry on its heels. U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, a Boulder Democrat, proved a quick study this month when he joined several colleagues, including Colorado’s Diana DeGette, in introducing the “FRAC Act” – the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act – which would add a layer of regulation over a technology used to boost natural gas production.”
- “So just how many times has fracking been linked to the contamination of drinking water because of migrating chemicals? Would you believe zero – despite its use in literally hundreds of thousands of gas wells, including nearly all in Colorado? … There are no documented cases of groundwater contamination caused by fracking. … And no wonder. The fracking liquids would typically have had to migrate thousands of feet through layers of impervious shale to reach groundwater.”
- “Surely Congress, in these fragile economic times, can find better things to do.”
Today, 9 out of 10 wells produced in America are fracked. Without this environmentally-safe technique, clean-burning natural gas production would be dramatically disrupted, or altogether stopped. This threat, posed by the DeGette-Casey FRAC Act, makes comments from Charles Ebinger, Director of the Brookings Institute Energy Security Initiative, that much more profound. In an analysis regarding G8 energy policy, Edbinger wrote this:
- “After Copenhagen, as energy experts rather than environmentalists hopefully take the reins of U.S. energy policy formulation, the outlines for a sound policy that will also benefit the climate until a carbon tax can be implemented are clear: (1) an aggressive push both in the United States and Europe to develop unconventional shale gas for base load power generation. In the case of the United States, shale gas has raised U.S. natural gas reserves over the last 4 years by 35%.
Continued>>
Broad coalition calls the bill ‘emotionally driven’; ‘costly solution for a problem that does not exist’
Yesterday, CLUB 20 – “a coalition of individuals, businesses, tribes and local governments in Colorado’s 22 western counties” – sent this letter to Colorado’s congressional delegation urging opposition to Reps. DeGette and Polis’ anti-fracking, anti-energy production bill moving through Congress.
“Organized for the purpose of speaking with a single unified voice on issues of mutual concern,” and coined the “Voice of the Western Slope,” the group wrote this to their federal legislators:
- By ignoring 35 years of successful state regulatory precedence in protecting groundwater supplies, the FRAC Act demonstrates neither “responsibility” for good public policy nor “awareness” of the facts related to this issue.
- CLUB 20 believes that Colorado’s groundwater supplies are of critical importance and we applaud the decades-long work of the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) for providing an appropriate state regulatory framework to assure the protection of our groundwater supplies from unintended contamination by oil & gas development.
- Hydraulic fracturing increases the efficiency and productivity of natural gas wells by 400-700%, especially in shales and tight sands which constitute the large majority of natural gas fields on the Western Slope of Colorado. Many of these wells would not be economically viable without the application of this technology.
- The FRAC Act is an emotionally driven attempt to preempt existing state authority and add an unnecessary and costly regulatory burden on one of our state’s most economically important industries. It represents a costly solution for a problem that does not exist, and will only result in driving up the cost (and thus discouraging development) of one of the cleanest sources of energy (natural gas) that we have available to us.
And while groups of concerned citizens who understand the facts, like CLUB 20, work to aggressively support environmentally-safe production of clean-burning natural gas, reports and figures continue to demonstrate the economic growth potential that shale gas holds.
In fact, in today’s Wilkes Barre Times-Leader, the paper reports that:
- ”As the natural-gas drilling industry ramps up in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, it could employ perhaps 13,000 workers by 2012, the vast majority of them general laborers with basic skill sets, according to a needs assessment released last week by the Marcellus Shale Education & Training Center.
- “Using a multiplier created by the Pennsylvania Economy League, the report suggests that nearly 20,000 non-industry jobs would be created by industry activities in the Northern Tier and Central regions. … The report’s results jibe with the industry’s own assessment in 2006, according to Stephen Rhoads, the president of the Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Association.”
However, the DeGette bill poses an enormous threat to tens of thousands of new, good-paying American jobs, while further undercutting progress toward making our nation more energy secure.
Continued>>
Earlier today, left-leaning think tank Center For American Progress (CAP) issued a web memo praising legislation, coined the FRAC Act, that will impede the production of clean-buring American-made natural gas. Surprisingly, or maybe not, the memo omits some important facts. Below, we do our level best to clean some of that up for them.
As laid out in this Energy In Depth Issue Alert, CAP senior fellow Tom Kenworthy – a former journalist who has been recognized by the Sierra Club for his excellent reporting – mixes a couple things up in trying to structure a defense of what increasingly is becoming a difficult bill to defend.
Here’s a quick synopsis of Mr. Kenworthy’s a few of the errors made in the piece:
CAP writes: “Re-establishing federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing seems a sensible precaution.”
We respond: Hydraulic fracturing has never been under the direct jurisdiction of federal law, rendering inaccurate the suggestion that “[r]e-establishing” such regulation would be a “sensible precaution.”
CAP writes: “The oil and gas industry has recently begun a multimillion campaign to defend the practice against the new legislation, which would force the industry to disclose the chemicals it uses and would make fracking subject once again to the Safe Drinking Water Act.”
We respond: While appreciative of Mr. Kenworthy’s generous characterization of the Energy In Depth coalition, the suggestion that the DeGette/Casey legislation “would make fracking subject once again to the Safe Drinking Water Act” is, as we’ve shown, mistaken. So too is the CAP description of the DeGette/Casey bill as an effort to “force industry to disclose the chemicals it uses,” a notion premised on the idea that state regulators have no access to information related to the materials used in local fracturing operations. The truth is, states do have access to that information. Some of them even post it on the Internet.
CAP writes: “Fracking is used in most U.S. oil and gas wells and involves pumping a combination of water, sand, and chemicals under high pressure deep into rock formations that hold oil and gas.”
We respond: While this definition of hydraulic fracturing is technically accurate, the author’s insistence on lumping together “water, sand, and chemicals” implies that the concentrations of each must be in equal, or at least similar, parts. The reality of the situation is quite a bit different, as water and sand on average comprise 99.51% of the liquids and materials used in the fracturing process (see graphic on page 62 of this report, issued in April by the Ground Water Protection Council and the U.S. Department of Energy). “[C]hemicals,” the vast majority of which you can find in your cupboard or under your sink, make up less than one-half of one-percent of the total mixture.
NOTE: To view the full Issue Alert, click HERE.
Continued>>
Earlier today, the Center for American Progress (CAP), an influential, left-of-center public policy organization based in Washington, D.C., posted a memo on its website in support of the FRAC Act of 2009 – legislation that seeks to impede the development of America’s abundant shale gas resources by targeting the critical tools needed to bring those resources to market.
Naturally, the CAP memo chooses not to characterize the purpose or intent of the legislation as such. Instead, CAP senior fellow Tom Kenworthy describes the bill as an attempt to force the energy industry to “disclose the chemicals it uses and … make fracking subject once again to the Safe Drinking Water Act.”
Of course, hydraulic fracturing has never been subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act, making it both physically difficult and semantically impossible to “subject” it “once again” to an Act of which it was never the object of regulation in the first place.
Other errors of fact, characterization, omission and commission are identified and corrected below.
CAP: “Re-establishing federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing seems a sensible precaution.”
Response: As indicated above, hydraulic fracturing has never been under the direct jurisdiction of federal law, rendering inaccurate the suggestion that “[r]e-establishing” such regulation would be a “sensible precaution.”
That’s not to suggest, however, that the technology is now, or has ever been, free from regulation. States have been regulating and overseeing the fracturing process for more than 60 years. And in that time, they’ve compiled a record of safety that few oversight agencies – be they local, state or federal – can match.
Unfortunately, this error in understanding appears to be common, especially among those who believe that, since fracturing earned an “exemption” from federal regulation in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama), it must be the case that fracturing was covered by federal statute previous to that.
But the Energy Policy Act did not exempt hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation. It simply clarified the position of Congress with respect to whether hydraulic fracturing was ever intended to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It was not — a judgment supported in full by the history of SDWA.
CAP: “The oil and gas industry has recently begun a multimillion campaign to defend the practice against the new legislation, which would force the industry to disclose the chemicals it uses and would make fracking subject once again to the Safe Drinking Water Act.”
Response: While appreciative of Mr. Kenworthy’s generous characterization of the Energy In Depth coalition, we must again take issue with his suggestion that the DeGette/Casey legislation “would make fracking subject once again to the Safe Drinking Water Act.” That assertion, as we’ve shown, is mistaken.
So too is the CAP description of the DeGette/Casey bill as an effort to “force industry to disclose the chemicals it uses,” a notion premised on the idea that state regulators have no access to information related to the materials used in local fracturing operations. The truth is, states do have access to that information. Some of them even post it on the Internet.
In spirit and in letter, H.R. 2766 is about EPA regulation, not disclosure – with section 2(a) of the bill clearly amending SDWA to include the regulation of hydraulic fracturing under its portfolio. With SDWA regulation comes EPA permit-authority of the process, a prospect that then-EPA administrator Carol Browner admitted was unnecessary in 1995.
For more information on what the DeGette bill actually does, please visit here.
CAP: “[ProPublica] asserts that more than 1,000 cases of water contamination near areas of oil and gas drilling have been documented by courts and government agencies across several states.”
Response: On this, Mr. Kenworthy is right: ProPublica does assert that. Left on the cutting-room floor is the following fact: Not a single documented case of drinking water contamination has ever been credibly tied to hydraulic fracturing. Not one. In 60 years.
From where does that “1,000 cases” figure arise? Last year, 452,000 wells produced natural gas in the United States. Recognizing the potential in that volume of activity, opponents of hydraulic fracturing have asked state regulators to produce detailed lists of each individual case in which a well was breached or any amount of methane compromised the integrity of the well. That none of these cases could be proved to have had anything to do with hydraulic fracturing is rarely mentioned.
In 2004, no less an authority than EPA itself undertook an exhaustive research project aimed at finding out, once and for all, whether hydraulic fracturing posed a legitimate risk to ground and drinking water. It found “no evidence” of any such risk. In his defense, Mr. Kenworthy references this study in his memo.
CAP: “Fracking is used in most U.S. oil and gas wells and involves pumping a combination of water, sand, and chemicals under high pressure deep into rock formations that hold oil and gas.”
Response: While this definition of hydraulic fracturing is technically accurate, the author’s insistence on lumping together “water, sand, and chemicals” implies that the concentrations of each must be in equal, or at least similar, parts.
The reality of the situation is quite a bit different, as water and sand on average comprise 99.51% of the liquids and materials used in the fracturing process (see graphic on page 62 of this report, issued in April by the Ground Water Protection Council and the U.S. Department of Energy). “[C]hemicals,” the vast majority of which you can find in your cupboard or under your sink, make up less than one-half of one-percent of the total mixture.
CAP: “Deep gas formations are ‘thousands of feet below the land surface and are separated from freshwater supplies by layers of steel casing, protected by concrete barriers as well as millions of tons of hard, dense solid rock geologic formations,’ said Chesapeake Energy Corporation Vice President Mike John during congressional testimony on July 4.”
Response: Not to pile on, but the hearing was held on June 4. Three weeks ago today.
More resources and materials from Energy In Depth:
Continued>>
Tags: Add new tag, anti-hydraulic fracturing, Bob Casey, Diana DeGette, Energy In Depth, energyindepth.org, fracing, fracking, Haynesville, Jobs, natural gas, Rep. John Fleming, shale
24.June.2009admin
Last night, Congressman John Fleming, a freshman from northwestern Louisiana – where massive amounts of economic growth, jobs and government revenues have been created as a direct result of clean-burning natural gas production in the Haynesville Shale region – took to the House floor to tout the real-life impact that American energy production creates and to dispel untruths about the environmentally-safe energy production technique known as hydraulic fracturing.
And as Mr. Fleming’s time to speak expired, he was preparing to show the American people an Energy In Depth diagram displaying how hydraulic fracturing safely produces clean-burning natural gas. Seriously, Mr. Speaker: You couldn’t have given him an extra 10 seconds to do that?
Key Excerpts:
“[Haynesville Shale natural gas production has] pumped $4.5 billion into the economy in FY 2008. It’s created nearly $3.9 billion in household earnings in the same year. The greatest impact on indirect and household earnings was experienced by workers in the mining sector with new household earnings of $191.3 million in 2008. It’s created over $30 million in new earnings in seven separate sectors.”
“[Haynesville Shale natural gas production has] created directly and indirectly over 32,000 jobs.”
“Conservative estimates report that state and local tax revenues increased by at least $153.3 million in 2008.”
“I wanted to talk a moment about how we get the natural gas out of that shale that we are talking about, that’s two miles deep in the earth. The method is called hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracing is a more common term. This method has been used for over 60 years and responsible for 30 percent of America’s recoverable oil and gas. Of wells currently operating today, wells currently operating today, over 90 percent have been fractured at least once.
“Environmentalists and their allies in Congress are escalating their assault on affordable and reliable energy with legislation that would place regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act, SWDA. A law that was never intended for this purpose.”
“This legislation would have a far-reaching negative impact on energy and energy producers and consumers alike. For years this process has been safely and effectively regulated by individual states. And of the more than one million wells fractured, not a single case, not a single case of drinking water contamination has ever been recorded.”
“In my state of Louisiana, three different agencies have oversight related to this process. So you see, it’s not an unregulated process.”
NOTE: Click HERE to watch this floor speech.
Continued>>
Tags: Add new tag, anti-hydraulic fracturing, Bob Casey, Diana DeGette, energyindepth.org, fracking, Hydraulic fracturing, Jobs, natural gas, Pennsylvania, shale
23.June.2009admin
Following last week’s historic report determining that the U.S. now has more than 100 years worth of proven natural gas reserves, up more than 58 percent than was previously thought, news organizations nationwide are paying close attention to:
1) the massive amounts of good-paying jobs clean-burning natural gas production will create here at home;
2) the fact that the more American energy we produce, the less dependent we are on foreign and unstable nations to keep our economy moving; and
3) the process to produce natural gas trapped thousands of feet below the water table in dense rock formations – called hydraulic fracturing – is not only heavily regulated, but it has a long, clear, proven safety record.
Here’s just a sample of the recent reports:
Richmond Times-Dispatch, Editorial
“America’s supply of natural gas is considerably greater than commonly thought, thanks to advances in recovery technology that now allow for drilling in shale rock.”
“But fossil fuels will continue to make up a major part of the equation for years, if not decades. Start drilling — now.”
Uniontown (PA) Herald Standard
“The Marcellus Shale natural gas formation is expected to create 100,000 jobs over the next decade.”
“The Marcellus Shale could make Pennsylvania “the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.”
“The shale must be fractured for the gas to be extracted. … D’Amico said to “frac” the shale, a combination of 90 percent water, 9.95 percent sand and .05 percent chemicals is used. Thus the drilling process will not contaminate water.”
“The drilling process includes three layers of pipe. He said wells one mile deep in the ground are well isolated from surface water, adding that everything that is done is regulated by the state Department of Environmental Protection.”
Bloomberg/LA Times
“U.S. natural gas reserves are likely 39 percent higher than estimated just two years ago as new technology is revealing deeper potential resources of energy. The U.S. has an estimated 1,836 trillion cubic feet of potential natural gas, the most on record, according to a report today by the Potential Gas Committee, a group of industry, government and academic volunteers. The estimate is up from 1,321 trillion cubic feet two years ago. The amount of proven and potential gas would meet U.S. demand for almost 100 years.”
“The DeGette/Casey bill would require permits from the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“Michael Decker, executive vice president for Gasco Energy Inc. said fracturing projects his company is working on drill to depths of 13,000 feet or more and that drinking water sources are generally at about 300 feet. He also said that the drilling wells are incased in concrete and that the substances used to extract gas are now less hazardous.”
Oklahoma Journal Record
“The dynamic rise of shale natural gas plays over the last decade, capped by the huge Marcellus Shale find from West Virginia to New York, has raised a backlash from environmentalists and East Coast metropolitan leaders concerned over hydrofracing.”
“A proven method of increasing oil and gas production, energy supporters point to five decades of injecting pressurized water, sand and chemicals into wells, all without evidence of groundwater contamination.”
“I don’t understand it,” he said of proposals that the EPA employ its own well-inspection crews.”
“Such a law could stop most or all drilling while the agency created, prepared and deployed its staff – which could take months. “I think it is counter-productive to everything that the Obama administration wants to do.”
Continued>>
Tags: anti-hydraulic fracturing, Energy In Depth, energyindepth.org, fracing, fracking, Haynesville, Hydraulic fracturing, Jobs, Louisiana, natural gas, shale, small business
19.June.2009admin
Still plenty of buzz around the Potential Gas Committee report this week – a biennial review of available U.S. natural gas reserves that found we may be sitting on a resource base 58% higher than previously thought. To what do we owe this extraordinary circumstance? The safe and responsible utilization of hydraulic fracturing, which, paired up with horizontal drilling, has allowed us to capture and deliver energy resources that were previously in rock too deep, too hard and too expensive to access. Hailed by Energy In Depth in a press release, the study further demonstrates that serious resources are available right here at home to help drive down energy costs and make America less dependent on Middle Eastern nations to fuel our economy.
It’s very simple. More American energy means more American jobs. Look no further than Shreveport, Louisiana for proof of that. As the Potential Gas Committee found, most of the newly discovered energy reserves are locked thousands of feet below the surface in thick, deep shale-rock formations. Without hydraulic fracturing, these resources could not be produced, and the associated jobs and massive government revenues, would not be generated.
Today’s Shreveport Times is a case-study of how responsible energy development is being used in communities across the United States as a key driver of local economic growth. The Haynesville Shale formation has been an economic game-changer in northwestern Louisiana. In fact, BusinessWeek ranked the energy-producing city “as 15th among its top 20 places in the U.S. where companies are hiring and the quality of life is high.”
The paper writes:
“Interest in the Haynesville Shale…continues to fuel employment in the region. The natural gas formation…has pumped millions of dollars into some property owners’ pockets — including local governments — since the discovery was announced in April 2008. A recently completed economic impact study estimates Haynesville Shale activity created about 32,742 jobs, about $2.4 billion in business sales statewide and nearly $3.9 billion in household earnings, including almost $3.2 billion in lease and royalty payments to private landowners, in 2008.”
Unfortunately, some in Washington are focused on hampering this positive growth and production of clean-burning natural gas through burdensome red-tape and duplicative mandates.
In today’s New York Times, the Energy In Depth coalition summarizes what fracturing techology means to America’s energy security — and how without this safe practice, the economic expansion seen in Shreveport, would not be possible:
“Hydraulic fracturing is the Rosetta Stone of natural gas development. With it, otherwordly amounts of shale and tight-pocket gas can be found, produced and delivered to Americans who need it. Without it, those resources remain trapped underground.”
Continued>>
