Posts Tagged ‘Bob Casey’
Sen. Casey asks Colo. congresswoman to help him make the case for jobs-killing anti-HF bill in Philadelphia paper – EID takes a closer look
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) represents the only congressional district in Colorado where hydraulic fracturing technology is not currently used; Philadelphia represents the only major city in Pennsylvania where the geology suggests it’s likely the technology will never be used.
So of course it made perfect sense for Rep. DeGette to choose the Philadelphia Inquirer to lodge her latest broadside against the 60-year-old energy technology known as hydraulic fracturing, teaming up with FRAC Act battery mate and Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey (D) on a column that does its level best to tie onshore natural gas exploration to the oil spill in the Gulf – notwithstanding the fact that hydraulic fracturing had nothing to do with the incident offshore.
But for those who continue to oppose the generations-old, 1.1-million-served-and-counting procedure of “fracking” a well, admitting to that fact would be tantamount to letting a once-in-a-lifetime crisis go to waste. After all: Opportunities to re-write a 37-year-old statute for the explicit purpose of assigning EPA unprecedented new authority over something that’s always been regulated by the states don’t come along every day. Rep. DeGette, a perennial FRAC Act introducer, knows it – and Sen. Casey likely does too. So maybe that’s why their column on hydraulic fracturing in Tuesday’s paper includes three separate allusions to the spill in the Gulf – three references in a column that only runs 580 words.
We’ll get to the errors in that piece in just a second. But let’s start by giving credit where credit’s due: Nowhere in the op-ed do Sen. Casey and Rep. DeGette attempt to advance the notion that fracturing was previously regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, but now – magically – is not. The reason, presumably, is that it’s not true. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped folks like Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) from peddling their own alternate reality in support of the FRAC Act.
In Hinchey’s world, EPA had been regulating hydraulic fracturing for 30 years right up until Dick Cheney rammed through legislation in 2005 that “exempted” the procedure from federal oversight. But wait, that bill had the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate? Wait, hydraulic fracturing had never in its history been regulated under SDWA prior to 2005, or after it? Wait! Did Rep. Hinchey just tell a committee of Congress that a nurse in Colorado “died after being exposed to fracturing fluids” – even though that’s not true? Of course he did. Silly to sweat the details when no one holds you accountable for them.
Again, to their credit, the inaccuracies found in Tuesday’s DeGette/Casey column can be considered minor compared to the whoppers that Hinchey and his friends let fly just about every week. But they still should be considered. Below we identify and correct just a few:
Continued>>
AP story on “potentially harmful” chemicals used in fracturing process runs everywhere in Pennsylvania – two days later, we learn DEP sent AP the wrong list (!)
Here’s how the argument against the decades-old process of fracturing a natural gas well tends to be structured: In one breath, an anti-gas activist will tell you the materials used in fracturing procedure are “secret.” And then in the next breath, he’ll recite a specific list of materials used in the process and declare them to be a danger to public health and welfare. Never mind the contradiction. Never mind that fracturing solutions are composed almost entirely (99.5%) of water and sand. Never mind that the formations being fractured are thousands (and thousands) of feet below the water table.
But this week, activists were dealt a serious blow when the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) released a comprehensive listing of the additives used in the fracturing process – effectively rendering moot all future claims of secrecy. But the news wasn’t all bad for these folks: Having secured a copy of the list from DEP, the Associated Press reported on Monday that among the items found on the sheet were naphthalene, toluene and xylene – all chemicals associated with a barrel of oil. So why exactly were shale producers using oil to produce natural gas?
Turns out they weren’t. According to an item in today’s Scranton Times-Tribune, the list supplied to the Associated Press by DEP contained a pretty significant boo-boo: Instead of listing all the materials used to access the shale gas, DEP’s list of chemicals included “not just the chemicals pumped deep underground, but also those stored or used on a well site, including fuel for vehicles and brake fluid,” according to the Times-Tribune.
Translation: The diesel fuel in the gas tank of the truck that carried the worker to the wellsite was included on the list. Looking for a good analogy? It’d be like compiling a list of materials used in baking a cake, and then including chemicals like toluene and xylene on that list simply because the dessert was delivered by a truck.
Here’s how the mistake went down:
The original list was a compilation of the chemicals identified on safety documents … but [DEP] did not realize that it included substances the contractors use both above and below ground on a well site. The second list was winnowed by a DEP chemist … Of the 83 chemicals on the list published by the AP and the 78 on the list posted by the DEP, only 37 items are in common. …
“You can blame it on me,” Scott Perry, the director of DEP’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, said on Wednesday.
Essentially what we have here is an honest mistake – made by a regulator who hasn’t been shy when it comes to defending the record of his Department against the likes of U.S. Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.). Back in April, Casey told Mike Soraghan of E&E News (link here, subs. req’d) that he planned to “look at whether state regulation is enough” in managing the fracturing process, stating further that if language was included in a Senate bill reaffirming the good work states have been doing over the past 60 years in safely regulating fracturing, “they will make me mad.”
Those words, incidentally, drew a strong rebuke from Democratic governor Ed Rendell’s DEP office, with Department spokesman Neil Weaver telling that same reporter that his office “would be more than willing to sit down and talk with Senator Casey about what we’re doing and how we’re moving forward.” Snap.
All of which brings us back to DEP’s Scott Perry, who told the Scranton paper to “blame it on me” for the mistakes in the AP story. Here’s what he told that same paper back in April when DEP first announced its intention to make its updated list public:
“If I honestly thought that fracking was causing a direct communication with groundwater resources, I wouldn’t be talking about how we have a chemical list. That is the ultimate half-measure. I would be saying, ‘This cannot occur.’ ”
“There has never been any evidence of fracking ever causing direct contamination of fresh groundwater in Pennsylvania or anywhere else,” [Perry] said.
Just so you have it handy, here’s a great list of the Top 10 quotes from DEP officials on the importance of responsible natural gas development – as compiled by the folks over at the Marcellus Shale Coalition. And here’s the video from a speech that DEP’s Scott Perry gave recently in the Northeast part of the state. Take a look at some of his quotes:
On the misconceptions he continues to encounter across the state:
- “When I’m talking to folks about the Marcellus, they try to point out some of its unique characteristics: ‘Well, Marcellus is different than all of these other wells; these are the deepest wells we have in the state.’ Well, that’s actually not true. We have over 11,000 permitted deeper wells in the Commonwealth; we have an entire statute devoted to regulating those wells.”
- “Some of the other things they say … ‘It’s the fracking. Fracking is what makes the Marcellus Shale different than all other wells in Pennsylvania. But [fracking] has been standard operating procedure in Pennsylvania since the ‘50s and … almost 100 percent of the wells drilled in Pennsylvania have been hydraulically fractured using the same [materials] that are being used with the Marcellus today.”
On Marcellus producers’ commitment to sound well construction and integrity:
- “I will tell you that the Marcellus operators have been building their wells to exceed our current regulatory standards; they’re building their wells in a manner that exceeds the [new] standards that we have actually proposed here, in many respects.”
On putting Marcellus water use in the proper perspective:
- “While five million gallons [of water] sounds like a lot, in the overall scheme of things, it’s not. And in fact, this industry at its peak, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission estimates, it will be using less water than our golf courses and ski resorts; it’s going to be using less water than recreation.”
On the record of safety and performance associated with hydraulic fracturing:
- “Just a note about fracking: First of all, it’s standard operating procedure in Pennsylvania. And it’s important to point out that we’ve never seen an impact to fresh groundwater directly from fracking.”
- “If there was fracturing of the producing formations that was having a direct communication with groundwater, the first thing you would notice is the salt content in the drinking water. It’s never happened. After a million times across the country, no one’s ever documented drinking water wells that have actually been shown to be impacted by fracking.”
- “A lot of folks relate the situation in Dimock to a fracking problem. I just want to make sure everyone’s clear on this – that it isn’t. What happened in Dimock was that a company was drilling in the Marcellus, and they encountered a shallow gas producing formation … which is common in this area of Pennsylvania. … It wasn’t a fracking problem.”
- “How many wells has fracturing damaged? I assume you’re referring to ‘how many drinking water wells.’? And in our experience, it’s been zero.”
Continued>>
Today marks the one-year anniversary of the introduction of the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act in the 111th Congress, a bill sponsored (but probably not authored) by Reps. Dianna DeGette (D-Colo.) and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) While short on actual legislative text, the bill – the Senate companion to which was introduced the same day last year by Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) – aims to give regulators in Washington unprecedented authority to regulate the commonly used energy technology known as hydraulic fracturing, never mind that states have been aggressively regulating the process for more than six decades already.
So here we are one year later. And despite the fact the no committee or subcommittee of either house of Congress has acted on the bill in any discernable way since its introduction, its threat to our economy and our nation’s energy security remains very real.
The Commonwealth Foundation, a Harrisburg-based think tank, says the FRAC Act “is unwarranted,” writing this in a recent policy brief entitled “Pennsylvania’s Natural Gas Boom”:
Congress is considering a federal takeover of fracking oversight, which would only lessen Pennsylvania’s environmental protection. S. 1215, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, would require the hydraulic fracturing process to be monitored by the federal government under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
S. 1215 is unwarranted. Fracking occurs thousands of feet beneath aquifers, and there is no indication it causes contamination. According to DEP’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management director, “there has never been any evidence of fracking ever causing direct contamination of fresh groundwater in Pennsylvania or anywhere else.”
Besides being unnecessary, the FRAC Act is poor policy, as it shifts responsibility away from local authorities who are better equipped to handle local situations. Pennsylvania’s regulatory agencies have made sure no water contamination in the state has occurred and should be supported as the correct regulatory bodies for protecting the state’s waterways.
The FRAC Act has lined up a few cheerleaders recently, though. In fact, there’s even a movie out now called GasLand that perpetuates tired, debunked talking points aimed at domestic energy production and the tens of thousands of jobs this industry continues to create. While the “documentary” has garnered some fanfare for its theatrics, it didn’t get quite the same reception when put under the microscope of an Energy In Depth fact-check.
But it’s not just Energy In Depth that understands how critical shale gas production, enabled by fracturing, is to our nation and to our economy. Other top opinion-leaders are speaking out, too. San Antonia Express columnist David Hendricks writes this in a recent column:
What if I told you a domestic fuel exists that emits only half the greenhouse gases of coal and can be found in abundant supply to last the United States at least 45 years?
Many of you already know what it is: natural gas. Technological advances are unlocking natural gas reserves in deep shale rock strata around the world. The more people search for new reserves, the more they find.
The United States has enough shale gas that prices can range in a comfortable zone for the next few decades.
The threat of Washington stripping energy-producing states of their ability to regulate fracturing is as real as the economic benefits this technology is bringing to regions of the country who desperately need jobs and affordable, domestic supplies of energy. Send Congress the message that responsible, heavily-regulated, job-creating American energy production is critical to our long-term security.
Continued>>
China’s rapacious appetite for economic growth, job creation and overall global dominance is no secret, nor is its playbook for achieving those goals. Affordable, stable supplies of energy – more than anything else – are the foundation of strong and competitive economies. Leaders in China understands this full-well, and is moving forward aggressively – with the help of the White House – to put their nation a path toward prosperity and unmatched growth.
While shale gas has been termed a “game-changer” in the United States, this clean-burning resource is also making waves in the global energy markets. In a report today from People’s Daily Online, under the headline “Sinopec to boost unconventional gas production capacity by 2015,” the news outlet reports this:
Sinopec Group (Sinopec), the country’s second-largest oil company, plans to increase its unconventional gas production capacity to more than 2.5 billion cubic meters annually by the end of 2015, a move in line with China’s efforts to diversify its energy mix.
Sinopec will speed up the development of unconventional gas including shale gas and coalbed methane during the central government’s 12th Five-Year Plan period (2011-15).
Development of unconventional oil and gas will become an important growth engine for the company’s business in the next five to 10 years, the company said in a statement on its website Tuesday.
The report highlights the critical role American-created hydraulic fracturing technologies will be for the Chinese to unlock their shale gas reserves and the role those resources will play in fueling its economic future:
Analysts said using more advanced foreign technology in the sector would accelerate the exploitation of China’s gas reserves.
Tight gas is natural gas contained in rock that must be fractured or broken open before it can flow easily to production wells.
Use of unconventional gas would be an effective substitute to meet China’s rising natural gas demand, said analysts.
You see, at the same time the White House is lending a hand to the Chinese to help tap their job-creating shale gas reserves, some in Congress (and other out-of-the-mainstream advocacy groups) are working to make it more difficult – or altogether impossible – for American energy resources to be safely leveraged into jobs, security and competitiveness. Hard to believe, isn’t it.
Maurice Hinchey, a senior member of the U.S. House whose district encompasses much of the Marcellus Shale along New York’s southern tier, is working feverishly – along with Rep. Dianna DeGette (Colo.) and Sen. Bob Casey (Pa.) – to effectively strip energy-producing states of their ability to regulate fracturing. Their bill – the FRAC Act – would for the first time in the history of the Safe Drinking Water Act give the EPA in Washington outright authority to regulate (not to mention permit) every aspect of the fracture stimulation process.
How come? Glad you asked. Are energy-producing states – who tightly regulated this practice – not pulling their weight? Not according to the EPA’s water regulator, and growing chorus of congressional Democrats, Republicans and governors.
Would there be any added environmental benefit should the FRAC Act become law? Afraid not.
But don’t these FRAC Act-backers just want to know what fluids are used in the process? Well, that’s already well-known, actually – 99.5 percent water and everyday playground sand, along with other additives commonly found in ice cream, gummy bears and peanut butter (scary stuff, huh).
The aim of the FRAC Act is not to make our water resources any cleaner or more secure. It’s aims is to make domestic energy production more burdensome.
China understands the benefits to stable and affordable energy supplies. If you do as well, then send Congress a message that the FRAC Act will cost jobs, increases our foreign energy dependence and put America in a weaker position in the global economy.
Continued>>
Last week was quite a week for shale gas production enabled by hydraulic fracturing, a 60-year old tightly regulated technology used to stimulate oil and gas production in 9 out of 10 wells nationwide.
There was plenty of positive and welcomed economic news. An updated Penn State University economic impact study released last Tuesday finds that the development of the Marcellus Shale’s clean-burning natural gas reserves, through the use of fracturing, has the potential to add an additional 212,000 new jobs to the state’s employment rolls over the next decade. Energy In Depth’s executive director, Lee Fuller, said this about the study:
“The release of this report from Penn State today serves to reinforce that status in a modern context, and also make clear to those who oppose this critical work on political or ideological grounds that, at least on practical economic grounds, that opposition could lead to fewer jobs, greater dependence, and a lot less revenue for the state.”
But Appalachia isn’t the only region of the country that is booming thanks to fracturing. The Shreveport Times reports this under the headline “Haynesville Shale spares local economy”:
The huge amounts of money injected into the local economy via the Haynesville Shale activity has spared northwest Louisiana from the worst effects of the national slowdown, according to an economist whose second-year study of the industry was released Tuesday.
In the report, Dr. Loren C. Scott pointed out that the seven firms participating in his study “pumped an amazing $7 billion into the state’s economy” in just one year. That sizeable injection of new money into the state can be equated to tossing a boulder into a pond.
Scott’s study serves as tangible evidence to the “tremendous economic benefits of natural gas extraction operations in northwest Louisiana,” said Don Briggs, Louisiana Oil and Gas Association president.
And in a report yesterday from KENS 5-TV, “Texas oil and gas boom paying dividends for San Antonio,” thanks to 21st century fracture stimulation technologies. This from the region’s CBS affiliate:
A huge, underground oil and gas field is promising big results, and that’s having an economic impact on San Antonio.
“I wish I had a crystal ball.” No one knows, no one knows. They just pick up the phone and start ordering equipment,” said Chase Hooker, Director of new business development for APPCO; a company that makes equipment called Frac-Sanders.
These huge, $250,000 machines deliver a special sand mixture to a well. The “frac” sand helps force fossil fuels out of the ground. Despite making a dozen of these 25-ton machines a month, APPCO is back-ordered through 2011.
Unfortunately, some in Washington – despite this overwhelmingly positive economic news in an otherwise struggling national economy – believe that the energy-producing states should be stripped of their proven ability to effectively regulate fracturing.
Last week, Colorado Rep. Dianna DeGette, an advocate for burdensome, duplicative and potentially devastating federal regulations on American energy production, offered and withdrew an amendment at a House Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up that would have stripped energy-producing states of their ability to effectively regulate fracturing. Like her bill, the FRAC Act, Ms. DeGette’s amendment would give the federal government – for the first time ever – authority to oversee this critical and heavily regulated practice.
Thankfully the amendment was withdrawn amidst pressure from Energy In Depth, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and scores of Democrats and Republicans on the panel.
EID’s Fuller wrote this in a letter to members of the committee leading up to the hearing:
The fact is, hydraulic fracturing has been ably and aggressively regulated by the states almost since the moment of its invention, with regulators compiling an impressive record of enforcement and oversight during that time. It’s a record that continues to be acknowledged by regulators and lawmakers on the federal level as well, most recently by EPA’s director of drinking water protection, who told a reporter in February that there existed “no evidence” that “states aren’t doing a good job already” when it comes to regulating fracturing activities.
But it’s not just America’s energy producers and job-creators speaking out about fracturing’s long and clear record of effectiveness and safety. Major newspapers are speaking out, too. Today’s Investor’s Businesses Daily writes this in an editorial:
Environmentalists, aided and abetted by Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, now want to stop us from unlocking our vast reserves of natural gas locked up in shale using a technique called hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.” The technique involves injecting liquids under pressure, 95% of which is water, into the shale rock to release the trapped gas.
Casey has introduced legislation to remove fracking’s long-standing exemption in the Safe Drinking Water Act that allows energy companies to use the process. He claims the process endangers America’s drinking water, though fracking is done thousands of feet below the groundwater table and there’s never been a case of groundwater contamination caused by fracking.
“This 60-year-old technique has been responsible for 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas,” according to Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. “In hydraulic fracturing’s 60-year-history, there has not been a single documented case of contamination.”
Continued>>
When it comes to the facts surrounding the 60-year old energy stimulation technology called hydraulic fracturing, which has been safely used more than 1.1 million times throughout the United States, several top New York academics believe that the facts – based on science and not fear or hyperbole – speak for themselves.
In yesterday’s Syracuse Post-Standard, under the headline “Scientists say Hydrofracking benefits outweigh risks”, a trio of Syracuse University experts echoed the fact that anti-shale gas production advocates – who “rely on fear ” – “are exaggerating the risk” of fracturing, and that “many of those concerns have been sensationalized” and “overblown.”
This from the article:
The debate should be about the science, he contends, as do two retired SU professors, Bryce Hand and Joe Robinson — who have defended high-volume hydraulic fracturing as a safe method to capture a huge supply of underground natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation.
But opponents of hydrofracking have “dispensed with science and rely on fear” to turn the public against drilling, Siegel said.
The voices of scientists are being drowned out, the professors said.
“What I’m finding is that no matter how you make the argument about shale bed methane to the local community, they refuse to understand it or refuse to even consider it,” said Siegel, a 62-year-old Syracuse resident.
And speaking of the facts, Pennsylvania Congressman Bill Shuster – a member of the House Energy and Mineral Resources panel – took to the pages of the Johnston Tribune-Democrat today to highlight the overwhelmingly positive economic impact that the safe, responsible development of the Marcellus Shale is having throughout the Commonwealth. Under the headline “Marcellus Shale: Reigniting state’s energy potential,” the congressman writes this:
There is enormous economic potential for Pennsylvania to take advantage of this reserve as new drilling techniques have unlocked vast resources previously impossible to reach.
Natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale will generate $14 billion and has the potential to create 98,000 jobs in 2010 alone, and bring in $800 million in state and local tax revenue.
From steel to rail, other industries are already responding to the needs of the growing gas industry. This will lead to more jobs and economic growth throughout the state.
It is important that we recognize the enormous potential shale gas holds for Pennsylvania and encourage this growing industry with smart policies that encourage economic development.
The congressman also underscores how effectively the state regulates this production, especially as it relates to fracturing:
Natural gas drilling is effectively regulated at the state level by the Department of Environmental Protection. I believe the state continues to be in the best position to manage and regulate the industry.
The federal government is considering regulation of a critical drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, which is necessary to recover gas from the Marcellus Shale.
Hydraulic fracturing has been used safely for 60 years; more than 1 million wells have been hydraulically fractured and there has never been a single documented case of groundwater contamination.
The practice is regulated effectively at the state level and there is simply no need for the federal government to step in with unduly burdensome regulations.
While Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) believes that unelected Washington bureaucrats are best suited to regulate fracturing, a chorus of key congressional supporters have recently weighed-in, sending a loud and clear message that energy-producing states are best able, equipped and situated to oversee this critical technology.
In fact, a bipartisan group lawmakers who serve on the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee – led by Reps. Sullivan (R-Okla.), Ross (D-Ark.) – wrote Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, leaders of the panel, last week, urging them to reject a one-size-fits-all Washington takeover of fracturing regulations.
Following the release of the bipartisan letter, Congressman Sullivan said this:
“In 2004, the EPA concluded that hydraulic fracturing poses no threat to groundwater. In fact, in the past 60 years, close to one million wells have been hydraulically fractured in the United States with no known harm to water supplies. I firmly believe that putting hydraulic fracturing under the grip of the EPA as some in Congress seek to do, would be a mistake and a bureaucratic nightmare that would lead to delays in recoverable domestic natural gas extraction and would hurt job growth in Oklahoma our nation.”
Congressman Mike Ross added this:
“Natural gas is one of our cleanest and most abundant energy resources in America. This industry also employs nearly 4 million Americans, including about 40,000 Arkansas families. Hydraulic fracturing is an important technology that allows us to safely recover natural gas from shale formations like the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas, reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources. It is absolutely critical we have the most recent and relevant scientific data before making any decisions, which will most likely have a far-reaching impact on Americans’ access to natural gas.”
And in a separate letter last week, Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner – the top Republican on the House Energy Independence Committee and former Science panel chairman – told EPA administrator Lisa Jackson this:
“EPA can help promote our nation’s energy independence by making it easier for the U.S. to rely on our domestic resources. We should let states regulate fracking guidelines instead of establishing federal mandates, or a government takeover of yet another industry.”
Continued>>
U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu knows a thing or two about what it takes to safely produce energy in America today. As senior senator from Louisiana, she represents the fourth-leading petroleum-producing state in the country – and that doesn’t even account for what’s produced along the federal OCS off the Pelican State’s shores.
Now, with the emergence of the Haynesville Shale in the northwest part of the state, Louisiana is poised to be a national leader in the development of natural gas as well. It’s an effort supported by Democrats and Republicans – and, not for nuthin’, probably a half-decent, instructive example for folks in hyper-polarized Washington to take an look at. Looking for new jobs? Congressman Steve Scalise writes that well-regulated energy production in the Haynesville “created almost 33,000 jobs and generated $3.2 billion into our state’s economy” in a recent Energy In Depth “Guest Blog” post.
Unfortunately, rather than acknowledging these economic and energy security benefits, and promoting them as aggressively as they can, some in Washington are working to add layers of burdensome, duplicative and unnecessary regulations to the 60-year old technology called hydraulic fracturing.
Landrieu, a member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources panel, “made a stop by the Haynesville Shale play near Mansfield Monday.” NWLA News tells us what comes next:
Fracking critics claim the process can contaminate drinking water. However, in 2004 the Environmental Protection Agency found that the process does not contaminate drinking water and needed no further study. “There are people in Washington want to claim that fracking cannot be done environmentally safely and they’re wrong it can be done in an environmentally safe way,” said Landrieu.
The Shreveport Times reports this about Sen. Landrieu’s recent visit to DeSoto Parish:
County officials in New York “need to hear from you that it is not dangerous,” [Sen. Landrieu] said of the fracing process.
Hear that, Sen. Casey? Ask someone who knows: Hydraulic fracturing is safe. It’s heavily regulated. And it’s helping to create tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs, and delivering stable, clean-burning, homegrown energy to families and small businesses at the same time.
Brad Gill, a member of Energy In Depth and executive director of New York’s Independent Oil & Gas Association, sheds some additional light on the supposedly “secret” aspects of this commonly used process, in the form of a letter-to-the-editor in the Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin today:
Your readers should know that the fluids used in the fracturing process are made of more than 99.5 percent water and sand. It’s true that chemical additives are commonly used in the process, but great efforts are made to reduce the likelihood those ingredients would ever come in contact with people, animals and all sources of fresh water. These ingredients – even those that are no longer used – are available on the DEC Web site.
The writer is correct on one thing: “Rural landowners badly need an economic break.” Safe, environmentally sound, well-regulated natural gas production – enabled by hydraulic fracturing – represents such a break.
But the tens of the thousands of jobs being created through environmentally sound shale gas development are not limited exclusively to the energy industry. Scores of good-paying, permanent indirect jobs are being created at breakneck rates. Despite this, some continue to lodge baseless attacks on hydraulic fracturing, the linchpin to shale gas development.
At a recent meeting with the Wilkes-Barre (PA) Times Leader editorial board, senior American Petroleum Institute economist Sara Banaszak said “this concern [about hydraulic fracturing] is misplaced,” noting that the fluids used in the process – made up of more than 99.5 percent water and sand – “are the same chemicals we see in our everyday use.”
As it relates to the new jobs associated with responsible shale gas development, Ms. Banaszak said the “economic potential cannot be ignored.” This from the paper:
For example, 50,000 jobs were created in Pennsylvania as a result of natural gas drilling in 2009. That number is expected to rise to 98,000 this year. That economic boost is why Pennsylvania lawmakers cannot afford to impose a severance tax on natural gas companies. “If you impose a tax, you get less investment and the government could see less revenue,” she said.
“This is an opportunity that is sort of unprecedented,” Banaszak concluded.” Not just for Pennsylvania, but for the entire country.”
Speaking of indirect economic benefits tied directly to shale gas production, the Associated Press reports this yesterday under the headline “Railroads booming with Marcellus Shale business”:
“The need to transport millions of pounds of sand and other materials to the rapidly increasing number of Marcellus Shale natural gas well drilling sites in Pennsylvania is bringing big business to railroads.
The new business is arriving as Pennsylvania’s railroad operators – the state has the most in the nation – were suffering shrinking demand for loads of traditional materials, such as coal.
Lorain, Ohio’s Morning Journal writes this a recent editorial:
Lorain seems to be in the right spot to capitalize on the nation’s desire to drill for more clean-energy natural gas.
U.S. Steel is considering spending $250 million to expand its Lorain Tubular Operations because of the Lorain plant’s proximity to an immense Appalachian Marcellus shale deposits that include parts of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York.
Natural gas is locked in that shale and energy companies need specialized steel tubing to drill for it. Some of the best steel tubing is made by U.S. Steel in Lorain.
Local government and business leaders should work together to make the U.S. Steel expansion in Lorain a reality.
And in a recent Philadelphia Bulletin op-ed, the Commonwealth Foundation’s Elizabeth Bryan writes this about responsible shale gas development:
The Marcellus Shale boom is accomplishing something that all of Governor Rendell’s economic development programs cannot: permanent jobs and more state tax revenue without a dime of taxpayer subsidies. Resisting the calls to tax natural gas producers will ensure Pennsylvania maintains a competitive edge without compromising our fiscal health or natural resources.
Continued>>
EID Fact Checks Philadelphia’s Anti-Natural Gas, Anti-Hydraulic Fracturing Resolution
WASHINGTON – Sure, Wayne County, Pennsylvania may be more than 150 miles away from Philadelphia. And yes, it may be true that folks up there – who happen to live closer to Syracuse than they do Philly – may have a potential interest in leasing private land for the purpose of responsible natural gas exploration in the area. But why should any of that stop the city of Philadelphia from trying to shut the entire operation down?
This week, its city council officially put itself on record in support of hastening precisely that outcome, approving (unanimously) a resolution demanding that Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) – which is housed in New Jersey – deny a critical permit to an energy operator looking to produce natural gas clear on the other end of the state.
Now, is this the same clean-burning natural gas from the Marcellus that could “create nearly 200,000 jobs and generate more than $13 billion in Pennsylvania over the next decade,” according to today’s Pittsburgh Tribune-Review? Indeed it is. Unfortunately, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, who remarkably serves as vice-chair of the city’s Commerce and Economic Development committee, doesn’t seem to be all that moved by the numbers. You see, the Marcellus doesn’t run through the southeastern corner of the state. So if Philadelphia can’t have it, the city council reasons — why should anyone else? (Btw: If you want to make your views known to DRBC before it renders a decision on the permit, click HERE – the window closes April 12)
Well, as you’d expect, the resolution passed by the city council this week targeting the use of hydraulic fracturing is a piece of work. How might it fare under the scrutiny of an EID fact check? Better than Villanova did against St. Mary’s, to be sure, but not as good as Temple did against Cornell (both lost).
CLAIM
“I knew the responsible thing to do was to send a strong message that drilling should not occur without an environmental impact statement,’ said Philadelphia City Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, who sponsored the resolution.” (Reuters, 3/25/10)
FACT
A host of independent studies, conducted by EPA and the Ground Water Protection Council – which counts state ground water regulatory agencies among its membership – have determined that fracturing has never contaminated groundwater. Carol Browner, top energy and environmental advisor to President Obama, wrote this in a memo about hydraulic fracturing as President Clinton’s EPA chief:
- 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.
More recently, Steve Heare – the EPA’s top drinking water regulator – said that he knew of no “documented cases that the hydro-fracking process was contaminating water supplies.” And just weeks ago, other top EPA officials appearing before a top committee of the United States Senate could not identify a single case in which fracturing has ever been shown to contaminate groundwater.
CLAIM
“Energy companies are currently NOT [ed. note: capital letters, hers] required by law to report the chemicals they are using, and legislation to end this loophole, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, sponsored by the Honorable Senator Casey and endorsed by 14 environmental organizations in Pennsylvania, is currently in committee in the United States Senate.”
FACT
1) No reporting of chemicals, huh? A detailed catalogue of solutions used in the fracturing process – which are almost entirely (more than 99.5 percent) comprised of water and playground sand – is available on the PA DEP’s website, as well as HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.
2) Mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), informational materials known as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are required to be kept at all well sites – and are available for use by emergency personnel responding to a potential disturbance. These sheets contain full listings of the materials involved in the fracturing process.
3) Hydraulic fracturing has never been directly regulated by EPA under federal law, nor has it benefited from a single “loophole” in it. The bipartisan 2005 energy bill, supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), simply clarified the historic intent and execution of the existing statute, making clear that states – who have been regulating fracturing activities for more than a half century – were, are and will continue to be best-equipped to oversee this process.
The FRAC Act, however, would for the first time in the 36-year history of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) strip energy-producing states of their ability to regulate this technology, handing outright authority over the process to EPA.
CLAIM
“There have already been cases of private well contamination due to fracking in Pennsylvania.”
FACT
PA DEP: “Responding to recent concerns expressed by residents of Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, the Department of Environmental Protection has collected dozens of water supply samples in the Carter Road area and determined that nearby gas well hydro fracturing activity has not impacted local wells.” (Release, 3/27/09)
BONUS FACT CHECK
CLAIM
US Sen. Bob Casey, author of the anti-energy FRAC Act: “Senator Robert Casey, a Democrat, said he would work hard to defeat any move to keep states as the regulators. ‘If that kind of provision were in it, that would be an area where I would want to spend a good deal of time either altering it or removing it,’ Casey told Reuters.” (Reuters, 3/25/10)
FACT
Any chance Sen. Casey consulted with his state’s sitting DEP secretary before registering that threat?
- DEP secretary John Hanger: “The public can be assured that as more and more wells are drilled to capitalize on our abundant natural-gas resources, DEP will remain vigilant in protecting the state’s rivers and streams.” (Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/20/09)
Sen. Casey’s FRAC Act could give EPA outright authority to regulate fracturing in energy-producing states, stripping states of their ability to closely and effectively regulate this technology. In an editorial entitled “Power play: Fracturing plan wrong, indefensible,” The Oklahoman writes this:
- “The latest power grab is an attempt to switch regulation of hydraulic fracturing from the states to the Environmental Protection Agency. … Some believe the technique poses harm to drinking water supplies. U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee, disagrees and says the regulatory shift would be “disastrous for the industry.” … Legislation has been introduced in Congress to require companies to disclose the chemicals used in the process and allow the EPA to ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is a solution in search of a problem.” (6/15/09)
PA state Rep. Jim Christiana – author of a state resolution to maintain Pennsylvania’s ability to effectively regulate fracturing – said this about attempts from Sen. Casey and others to strips states of this right:
- “Recent efforts to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, which would substantially increase the costs of producing our vast reserves of clean, domestic natural gas with no resulting environmental benefits, are unwarranted and were never intended by Congress or the Environmental Protection Agency. Pennsylvania’s oil and gas regulatory program is among the most stringent in the United States and places great emphasis on protecting groundwater supplies. I believe that additional and costly Federal oversight is unnecessary and cost-prohibitive.” (Release, 1/26/10)
Continued>>
Prominently featured atop the Drudge Report today is an article from the UK Telegraph entitled “Energy crisis is postponed as new gas rescues the world.” The focus of the article, written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, is the expansion of American natural gas production from shale rock, miles below the earth’s surface.
Thanks to cutting-edge, 21st century technologies – particularly hydraulic fracturing – gas reserves that were once considered unreachable are now being safely produced. In this process, thousands of American jobs are being created, billions in economic output are being generating, and American energy security is growing stronger.
Here are the key take-aways from the article:
“’There has been a revolution in the gas fields of North America. Reserve estimates are rising sharply as technology unlocks unconventional resources,’ said [Tony Hayward, BP’s chief executive.”
“The common wisdom was that unconventional gas was too difficult, too expensive and too demanding. This has changed. If we ever doubted that gas was the fuel of the future – in many ways there’s the answer.”
The breakthrough has been to combine 3-D seismic imaging with new technologies to free “tight gas” by smashing rocks, known as hydro-fracturing or “fracking” in the trade.
The US is leading the charge. Operations in Pennsylvania and Texas have already been sufficient to cut US imports of liquefied natural gas (LGN) from Trinidad and Qatar to almost nil, with knock-on effects for the global gas market – and crude oil. It is one reason why spot prices for some LNG deliveries have dropped to 50pc of pipeline contracts.
The US Energy Department expects shale to meet half of US gas demand within 20 years, if not earlier. Projects are cranking up in eastern France and Poland. Exploration is under way in Australia, India and China.
Texas A&M University said US methods could increase global gas reserves by nine times to 16,000 TCF (trillion cubic feet).
Needless to say, the Kremlin is irked. “There’s a lot of myths about shale production,” said Gazprom’s Alexander Medvedev.
Other regional newspapers here at home are also taking notice of the economic activity that natural gas production, because of hydraulic fracturing, is helping the US realize.
Today’s Buffalo News reported this under the headline “There’s gold (sort of) in them hills”:
The result is that a horizontal well, in just the right place, can tap into far larger natural gas deposits than a well that just goes straight down. A conventional gas well, costing about $250,000 to drill in less productive portions of the Southern Tier or northwestern Pennsylvania, might produce about 100,000 cubic feet of gas per day, roughly enough to supply 1,000 homes for a year.”
And with the US unemployment rate at a 26-year high, the jobs created though this safe and well-regulated energy production process are especially heartening.
The Danville (PA) Daily Item, under the headline “Official sees 8000 shale drilling jobs,” reported this last week:
Lycoming County Commissioner Rebecca A. Burke told the Greater Susquehanna Chamber of Commerce on Thursday at the Front Street Station that Marcellus Shale could create 8,000 jobs. To date, roughly 400 blue-collar jobs have been created and 30 new businesses started, said Burke, who added that she expects the creation of 8,000 full-time jobs in the next five years. … One drilling site alone requires 410 employees, she added. Landowners also have the potential to make money by leasing land for drilling, she said. Burke recommended that anyone planning to lease land get an attorney who is familiar with leasing and also seek the assistance of a tax expert. … “The hospitality industry will see a lot of growth,” Burke said. “There are few industries that won’t have opportunities.” When Burke was asked if this meant all-around growth for the area, she replied, “Absolutely.”
Despite this huge uptick in American energy production, and its associated economic and energy security benefits, some in Washington are working to halt this progress. A bill authored by Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) – called the FRAC Act – would undermine the strong current state regulatory frameworks that has led to nearly 60 years of safe hydraulic fracturing and domestic energy production.
Thankfully, as facts continue to surface that far outweighs the hyperbole trafficked in by opponents of the technology, the effort to leverage its use into jobs, revenue and security for Americans continues in earnest.
Continued>>
