But as you might expect, the senior U.S. senator from Pennsylvania isn’t quite so torn. In a letter sent this week to Mark Quartermain, president of Shell Energy North America, U.S. Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.) lays out a pretty compelling case for why Shell should set-up shop in Pennsylvania, citing the state’s skilled workforce, extensive rail transportation network, and the “great potential that Marcellus Shale resources” has to offer. Not to be outdone, federal lawmakers from Ohio and West Virginia (and governors too) have weighed in as well, each hopeful that their workforce, infrastructure and shale-related geology will help put their state over the top – and snag 10,000 new jobs in the process.

As Sen. Casey alludes to his letter, the reason Shell’s in the position today to make such an enormous investment in the region is directly related to the remarkable volumes of natural gas (and especially, natural gas liquids) currently being produced from shale. What the senator doesn’t mention in his letter, though, is the fact that he’s currently the co-author and chief sponsor of legislation in the Senate that has the potential to shut down shale development all across the country, starting in his home state of Pennsylvania.

At least that’s the position of Gasland director Josh Fox, who has called for a nationwide ban on the technologies needed to harvest energy from shale, and for good measure, a global ban on all fossil fuels. Over on his website, Fox directs visitors to call their elected representatives and “let them know you support the FRAC Act.” Why that bill? Because “we can’t stop fracking without you.” Does that sound like a disclosure bill to you?

All of which sets up an interesting question: Had Sen. Casey actually passed his legislation when it was first introduced a couple years back, would Shell have decided to invest $2 billion in a facility whose entire business case is premised on continued access to affordable energy resources from the Marcellus and Utica shales? We can’t say for sure. What we do, though, is that one of the provisions included in the $41-billion merger between Exxon and XTO in December 2009 was a clause suggesting the deal could be called off if Congress were to pass a bill making “hydraulic fracturing or similar processes… illegal or commercially impracticable.” Sounds a little bit like Sen. Casey’s bill, doesn’t it?

Separate and apart from the legislation, the senator also appears to have a habit of “shooting first” and asking questions later when it comes to assigning blame in rare occasions when things go wrong. In March 2011, Sen. Casey wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy asking the agency to investigate “yet another gas-migration-related explosion” in McKean Co., Pa. – telling Secretary Chu that, to him, “it appears” the incident was caused by “extensive new deep drilling activities.” Less than a month later, PA DEP released the findings of its investigation, showing the source of methane migration to be shallow, abandoned wells drilled in the area more than 125 years ago. Not shale. And not new.

All that aside, though, Sen. Casey deserves credit for standing up for his state and fighting for thousands of family-supporting jobs at an otherwise very difficult time for our country and our economy. The good news for everyone is that, wherever the cracker is located, most experts believe that the entire region will benefit tremendously from the multi-billion dollar shot-in-the-arm that this facility portends. According to Keith Burdette, West Virginia’s commerce secretary, “the sites [are] just so closely grouped together that the impact across state lines will be significant.”

Of course, all things being equal, Mr. Burdette wants that sucker in West Virginia. Ohio governor John Kasich wants it in Ohio. And Sen. Casey? Well, he wants that cracker in Pennsylvania. As for us? We’d settle for a box of wheat thins. That, and maybe before anyone sends out any more letters – perhaps a moment of reflection on what’s made this entire conversation possible?

On Fracture Zone and Groundwater:

• “Marcellus of course is about between 5,000 and 9,000 feet, as it moves across Pennsylvania. And so the point there of course, is that persons that are concerned about interaction between frac fluids and our drinking water supplies, and there are a substantial number of aqua guards that exist between where the Marcellus Shale is and where our drinking water supplies are. Thousands of feet of course separate them.”
• “[U]nless you provide a conduit between those two areas, between the Marcellus Shale and the drinking water, there is virtually no physical way for frac water to interfere with, or directly communicate with, drinking water supplies.”
• In fact, we have not had, to date, any documented incidents of frac water directly communicating and polluting drinking water supply… in Pennsylvania.”

On the FRAC Act:

• “The fact is, that even if enacted, we don’t believe that the FRAC Act will change regulation in Pennsylvania at all.”
• “Pennsylvania already achieves what is sought to be achieved by the Federal FRAC Act. We already require cementing and  casing to protect underground drinking water resources, which I just went through briefly, and we also, I will go through this in a little more detail, require reporting of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing by the percent volume.
• “[A]ny member of the public or industry for that matter, that wants to identify what is in FRAC fluids can get on our website and go to that well and find out what the mix was by percent volume and identify all the chemicals used in that particular well for fracking.”

Audio clip available HERE.

On March 17, 2011, U.S. Reps. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) posted identical press releases on their respective websites trumpeting the introduction of the “BREATHE Act,” legislation the lawmakers sought to characterize as an attempt to end “exemptions” in the Clean Air Act (CAA) governing oil and natural gas development in the United States.

The bill is being touted as “sister legislation” to the FRAC Act – and indeed, the two are similar: Both are founded on the mistaken belief that major federal environmental laws somehow don’t apply to America’s energy producers. In fact, they do. They always have. And it’s a pretty safe bet they always will.

Of course, with no legislative text available quite yet, the only sources we have on the scope and structure of the bill are the Polis/Holt press release and the legislative and regulatory wish-list produced in 2007 by the national anti-shale interest group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), from which these lawmakers doubtless drew their inspiration.

Specific to the BREATHE Act, the bill reportedly includes two sections:

• The first directs EPA to regulate low-volume emissions from oil and natural gas sites as if they were “major” sources of emissions under the law — an outcome requiring the agency to lump minor sources together (wherever they may be, whomever they may be owned by) to create a single, artificial unit eligible for regulation.

• The second provision relates to the regulation of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S), a naturally occurring chemical compound dangerous to human health at high levels, and one that Reps. Holt and Polis insist is “exempt from regulation” under CAA. In fact, H₂S is explicitly regulated under Section 112(r) of the Act, specifically designed to address the potential for an accidental, high-concentration release of the chemical.

Armed with this understanding of the bill (thanks to NRDC), we attempt below to separate myth from fact on the BREATHE Act:

Myth: ”Originally included in the Clean Air Act’s list of hazardous air pollutants, H₂S was removed with industry support.” (Polis/Holt press release, Mar. 17, 2011)

Facts:

• Hydrogen sulfide’s original listing was due to a “clerical error,” according to Senate records – and was ultimately removed by Senate Democrats in 1991 via a technical correction resolution that did not receive a single vote in opposition.

• According to Senate transcripts, Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) offered the resolution on behalf of Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, Democrat from Maine. From the Congressional Record: “Mr. President, the purpose of this joint resolution is to make a technical correction in section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended by section 301 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549. … This term [hydrogen sulfide] was inadvertently left in the enrollment of the 1990 legislation due to a clerical error. The joint resolution simply removes the term from the list in the Clean Air Act, as amended.” (Senate Congressional Record, page S4679, Aug. 1, 1991)

• Despite making the determination that H₂S did not belong in the “routine emission” category, Congress did conclude that accidental releases of the compound could present a significant issue, and therefore decided to regulate it under the risk management provisions of CAA, establishing a program specifically designed to address the potential for accidental, large-scale releases of H₂S from various facilities, including oil and gas operations.

Myth: ”Surely we wouldn’t assume that as long as one car meets emissions standards, 20,000 cars wouldn’t affect air quality. Unfortunately, this exact false logic is currently being applied to oil and gas drilling and it’s causing noticeable health impacts.” (Rep. Jared Polis [D-Colo.], as quoted in Mar. 17 press release)

Facts:

• Here, Rep. Polis attempts to analogize the cumulative emissions impact of 20,000 cars to the aggregation of oil and gas well sites under CAA. It’s a colorful analogy, but, on closer inspection, an irrelevant one. Just as the Clean Air Act’s “major emissions” threshold doesn’t apply to the emissions of one car, it doesn’t apply to the emissions of 20,000 cars either. Auto emissions are regulated by several other, more appropriate provisions of CAA, just as emissions from oil and natural gas are regulated under other, more appropriate provisions under the same Act.

• Given the varied types of industrial operations in the U.S., when Congress chose to revise the hazardous air pollutants title of the CAA, it applied emissions requirements to “major sources” of air pollution, which it defined as stationary sources — or groups of stationary sources — located withina contiguous area and under common control that emit more than 10 tons of any hazardous pollutant per year.

• Rep. Polis tries to justify these requirements by implying that only with aggregation can there be regulation.  In reality, oil and natural gas production facilities are treated as “minor” sources under the law subject to detailed technology requirements, but not caught in the complicated and costly permitting requirements of the law’s “major sources” category.

• Left on its own, EPA has already shown an interest in expanding its definition of “aggregation” well beyond what most folks would consider reasonable.  In its greenhouse gas reporting regulations, EPA concluded that because the clear definition of an oil and natural gas production facility does not subject enough facilities to regulation, it would create a “basin” definition to apply to those operations instead. Under this construct, all well pads owned by a company in a basin would be treated as one facility. One of these “basins” happens to run from the border with Mexico to the Mississippi River, and from the Gulf of Mexico about 100 or more miles inland. Remarkably, EPA’s position appears to be that this massive swath of real estate represents a “clustering” of wells eligible for aggregation. (EPA: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; Final Rule, Nov. 30, 2010)

Myth: ”Like the FRAC Act, which addresses an industry exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the BREATHE Act closes two industry exemptions in the Clean Air Act, which are causing direct and measurable heath consequences in area [sic.].” (Polis/Holt press release, Mar. 17, 2011)

Facts:

• In 1993, the Clinton administration’s EPA, headed-up throughout the president’s term by Carol Browner, issued a 228-page report to Congress detailing why the regulation of H₂S under CAA’s subtitle (b) of section 112 was a bad idea – a fact conveniently obscured by proponents of the BREATHE Act. Among the findings made by Ms. Browner’s agency to Congress:

o    “[T]here appears to be no evidence that a significant threat to public health or the environment from routine emissions [of H₂S] from sour oil and gas wells.” (EPA: Report to Congress on Hydrogen Sulfide Air Emissions Associated with the Extraction of Oil and Natural Gas, Oct. 1993)

• Another inconvenient truth: According to EPA, H₂S is currently regulated under no fewer than five major federal environmental statutes:

o    EPA: “[H₂S] is listed as a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). It is listed under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) … The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established General Industry Standards that list worker exposure concentration limits … The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has produced a criteria document .. for safe worker exposure levels and work practices.” (Ibid)

• … and at least four separate federal agencies:

o    EPA: “The United States EPA has the potential for regulation of new oil and gas well sources through the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, and, as mentioned previously, H₂S is listed under the CAA section 112(r) accidental release provisions. Other standards for worker and public protection from H₂S emissions come from the Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management Service, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.” (Ibid)

READ MORE

• EID fact check: On Wastewater and The New York Times
• Fmr. DEP Secretary: NYT wastewater article “deliberately false”
• DEP press release: Tests of PA rivers finds water to be safe
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Gas Drillers Recycling More Water, Using Fewer Chemicals
• Fact-Check: Debunking GasLand (Fact Sheet)

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

In a statement, Energy In Depth’s Lee Fuller underscored the potential impact this far-reaching, Washington-knows-best policy could have on America’s economy and job creators, as well as our nation’s energy security:

“Hydraulic fracturing is one of the most critical processes that occurs at the wellsite; it’s also among the most stringently regulated. With this technology, it’s possible that literally quadrillions of cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas can be rendered available for American consumers in the future, resources that would otherwise be too deep and diffuse to access. It’s a technology that’s been around a long time, stretching all the way back to the Truman administration. But it’s also a technology that’s never been more important to our nation’s economic and environmental future than it is today. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, it became a victim of its own success. If hydraulic fracturing weren’t as patently effective as it is, it’s tough to imagine it’d be as strangely controversial as it has become.”

And today’s Wheeling News-Register reports this on the misguided legislation:

Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy In Depth, went further than Klaber, saying the FRAC Act is “based on fundamentally incorrect information,” noting the Safe Drinking Water Act was never used to regulate fracking. “Its backers say it’s about forcing companies to disclose the composition of the … solution that’s not water and sand, even though just about every state regulatory agency in the country will attest that such information is already available,” Fuller added.

Those responsible for regulating oil and natural gas development, and fracture stimulation technologies, are in agreement with energy producers on the facts: this 60 year old technology has never impacted groundwater, thanks in large part to the industry’s commitment to protecting the environment and the common sense state regulations and laws in place. This from Oklahoma’s News On 6 (also on EID’s YouTube page):

Chesapeake Energy’s Chairman and CEO, Aubrey McClendon, said he welcomes the study. “I think the EPA will do a good job of examining it,” McClendon stated, “and if we’re doing something wrong…somehow hurting the environment and we don’t know about it, then we want to fix what we’re doing wrong.”

But McClendon said Chesapeake has hydraulically fractured formations 14,000 times since 1989, and the record shows there isn’t anything wrong.

Larry Nichols, Devon Energy Executive Chairman, agrees. “Show us one single well where hydraulic fracturing has caused any problem,” Nichols said. “I’ve said that in testimony before Congress, and no one has yet to come up with one single well where hydraulic fracturing has caused a problem, that anyone can document with any scientific accuracy.”

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has oversight of all drilling in the state, including fracking. Commissioner Bob Anthony believes the EPA study is a political scare tactic. “The facts are,” Anthony said in a written statement, “that hydraulic fracturing has been used in Oklahoma about 100,000 times in the last 60 years, with no documented cases of groundwater contamination.”

Nichols worries that the Obama administration’s goal, through the EPA study, is to wrest control of onshore drilling from the states. His fear is that they would then do to onshore drilling what they’ve done to offshore — “Shut it down,” he said.

A quick look around the U.S. at the overwhelmingly positive impacts that hydraulic fracturing – which is tightly and aggressively regulated by energy-producing states – continues to have, all of which would be jeopardized if the FRAC Act were to become law:

MT Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Western Governors Association chair, and fmr. Democratic Governors Association chair: “We’re increasing in Montana by thousands of jobs in drilling in what’s called the Bakken (Shale Formation) in eastern Montana,” the state’s Governor Brian Schweitzer told Fox News. “It is the richest geologic structure in all of the United States. Recent estimates are that there’s about 25 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana. To put that in perspective we import about 4 billion barrels a year. We use about 6 billon barrels a year. So this one structure in North Dakota and Montana could be one of the keys to energy independence in the short term.” (Fox News, 3/17/11)

Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) President Daniel Juneau: The second factor that can greatly expand economic activity in the state is for the federal government to stay out of regulating shale oil and gas drilling activities. In 2004, the EPA concluded a 5-year study that concluded that the hydraulic fracturing process used in shale drilling was safe. Now the current EPA wants to go back and revisit the issue. If the EPA outlaws hydraulic fracturing, it will be the death-knell for shale oil and gas production. There is currently a tremendous amount of economic activity going on in northwest Louisiana from shale gas drilling in the Haynesville Shale play. Across central Louisiana, there is a potential for as much as 70 billion barrels of crude oil from the Tuscaloosa Shale play. Production from these shale plays can be a real shot in the arm to jobs and investment in our state. (Bastrop Daily Enterprise Op-Ed, 3/16/11)

“Penn State study shows sales tax revenue higher in Marcellus counties”: A new Penn State University publication examines state tax collection data and specifically compares counties where there is drilling and production activity in the Marcellus shale play with that of non-Marcellus counties. … The data indicates that local spending has increased in counties with major Marcellus activity. State tax collections of the personal income tax and realty transfer tax show similar differences between Marcellus and non-Marcellus counties. (Oil & Gas Journal, 3/16/11)

“Why North Dakota Is Booming: They’re drilling for oil, attracting high tech, and keeping the tax burden moderate. Result: 3.8% unemployment.” Living on the harsh, wind-swept northern Great Plains, North Dakotans lean towards the practical in economic development. Finding themselves sitting on prodigious pools of oil—estimated by the state’s Department of Mineral Resources at least 4.3 billion barrels—they are out drilling like mad. And the state is booming. Unemployment is 3.8%, and according to a Gallup survey last month, North Dakota has the best job market in the country. Its economy “sticks out like a diamond in a bowl of cherry pits,” says Ron Wirtz, editor of the Minneapolis Fed’s newspaper, fedgazette. (Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, 3/15/11)

PA State Rep.: Marcellus Shale’s “powerful [economic] ripple effects are spreading throughout the commonwealth”: And in those once-depressed counties where clean natural gas trapped in the deep shale rock is now being reached for energy consumers through high-technology horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, residents are enjoying a dramatic rebirth of jobs, business growth, and income. And, as a result, the Pennsylvania state treasury and the municipal governments in those regions are already receiving significant boosts in tax revenue … Pennsylvania natural gas is creating jobs, generating income, and boosting tax revenues. And while much of the economic activity remains concentrated in the Marcellus Shale regions, powerful ripple effects are spreading throughout the commonwealth. (The Sentinel Op-Ed, 3/12/11)

“Increased Drilling Creates Jobs”: An oil drilling boom across the American West is creating a wealth of job opportunities at a time when most segments of the economy remain sluggish. The boom is the result of new and updated technologies allowing companies to go after oil reserves that until recently were trapped in shale formations, making them too expensive and difficult to tap even five or ten years ago. “This is solid rock, so it’s not like a conventional resource where you just drill a well and the oil starts to flow,” Kathleen Sgamma, Director of Government and Public Affairs for The Western Energy Alliance, explained. “We have to crack that rock through a process that we call hydraulic fracturing where we pump high pressure water and a mixture, and sand down into the formation to crack the rock and create micro-fissures in the rock and prop it open with sand.” (Fox News, 3/17/11)

“This is an employment opportunity for the region. It’s going to provide a new workforce opportunity”: This summer, Clarion University’s Venango Campus will begin offering a natural gas technology program. “Obviously the Marcellus Shale industry is emerging in Pennsylvania and beyond, and it is going to be requiring a huge workforce,” said Christopher Reber, Executive Dean of Clarion University-Venango Campus. “There’s already been a phenomenal investment in Pennsylvania.” … “This is an employment opportunity for the region. It’s going to provide a new workforce opportunity, and certainly we’re committed to promoting economic development for the whole area,” Reber said. (WYFX-TV, 3/16/11)

ND’s Oil Boom Has “has created a $1 billion state budget surplus”: North Dakota, the state with the nation’s lowest unemployment rate, capped a decade of economic prosperity with dramatic population growth in its biggest cities. … North Dakota is enjoying an oil boom in the western part of the state, drawing workers from across the country. Williston, in oil country, grew 17.6% to 14,716. The oil windfall has created a $1 billion state budget surplus. … “We feel extremely fortunate for the position we’re in,” says North Dakota Commerce Commissioner Paul Govig. (USA Today, 3/17/11)

Hydraulic Fracturing, American Oil Production Creating Blue Collar Jobs: Increased drilling in the Niobrara Shale Formation in eastern Wyoming and Colorado is also creating job opportunities. “Currently, Noble Energy has over 60 jobs that are available in this area,” according to Stephen Flaherty, Director of Government Relations for Noble Energy. “The opportunities range from field pumpers, which just require a high school degree and no oil field service all the way up to petroleum engineers and everything in between; information technology services and accounting, just about every discipline.” (Fox News, 3/17/11)

Last week, PA’s DEP secretary, John Hanger, once again confirmed the fact that hydraulic fracturing has never impacted groundwater, a fact that a host of PADEP officials continue to reinforce. And last night, in a KDKA-TV segment, Sec. Hanger once again confirmed that fact that fracturing – a tightly regulated, 60 year-old technology used to stimulate oil and natural gas production – has never contaminated groundwater, which is what top EPA officials told a U.S. Senate panel this year.

And earlier this week, Radisav Vidic – a University of Pittsburgh professor with a Ph.D. in environmental engineering – told the Wheeling News Register that he has “not seen any evidence that fracturing itself poses a danger to the environment. The process has been around since the 1950s.”

Not to be outdone, though, West Virginia University’s Donald Lyons, an engineering professor, writes about the economic potentials of responsible Marcellus Shale development, fracturing’s long and clear record of safety, and the devastating impact that the FRAC Act could have on job creation and domestic energy production in a Charleston Gazette op-ed this week entitled “Natural gas means more jobs”:

Underlying West Virginia is the Marcellus Shale, which is another great source of natural gas. Last year, shale-gas drilling in the Marcellus provided 57,000 new jobs — mainly here in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. An economic study estimated that drilling throughout the Marcellus Shale, which extends from Kentucky to upstate New York, could create 280,000 new jobs and add $6 billion in tax revenues over the next decade.

State agencies do a commendable job of overseeing the process of hydraulic fracturing, a technology that has been used for decades to produce oil and natural gas, to assure the process is done safely and without a negative impact on the environment.

Opponents of shale-gas drilling … want regulatory oversight to be shifted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is conducting a study of hydraulic fracturing practices at the direction of Congress. But adding one more layer of bureaucratic red tape will stall natural gas production by raising drilling costs by as much as $100,000 per well, without making shale-gas production any safer than it already is. This could force most of the independent companies that account for the bulk of natural gas production to shut down their operations. In that event, gas production would drop 45 percent within five years, according to an industry study, and thousands of jobs would be lost. Shale gas production should be increased, not decreased.

So what does the public think about this historic opportunity? Well, according to a Lycoming College poll released yesterday, folks in the communities where Marcellus production is underway overwhelmingly support this activity and believe strongly – nearly 80 percent – that “the creation of many jobs was very likely.”

But hydraulic fracturing is not just helping to create thousands of good-paying jobs, stable supplies of homegrown energy for consumers, and much-needed economic activity in the Rust Belt exclusively. In North Dakota, through the responsible development the Bakken Shale’s abundant, job-creating oil reserves, small towns are expected to “double in the next 5 years,” according to a WDAY news report this week. This from their dispatch under the headline “Workers needed to fill thousands of jobs in western North Dakota”:

Williston’s Economic Development Executive Director Tom Rolfstad says the surge out west is not an oil boom, but an oil industry, saying it isn’t going away anytime soon. He expects Williston and other western towns in the Bakken Shale to double in the next 5 years. It’ll leave them in need of everything from oil workers, to doctors, bakers, and waitresses.

It’s a problem much of the country would like to have. Tom Rolfstad is pleading for workers.

“We need a lot of help! How are we going to grow this fast?” He says he needs thousands of people. It’s part of the “Invest in the West to Fund the Rest” campaign. Rolfstad and other economic development leaders are trying to get more North Dakota workers out west to fill about 3-thousand jobs.

The Associated Press also reports on the incredible amount of economic opportunity, job creation and prosperity that fracturing is helping to make possible for North Dakotans:

In recent years, oil companies have been extracting oil from the Bakken shale deposit, the largest such formation ever surveyed in the United States by the U.S. Geological Survey.

The number of millionaires in North Dakota rose by more than 40 percent in one year alone, to 388 in 2006.

Unfortunately though, some leaders in Washington are working to advance misguided policies that seek to severely undercut producers’ ability to safely deliver the energy resources needed to fuel our economy. Naturally, the less energy produced, the fewer jobs created – and tougher it is to make good on the promise of America’s homegrown (and growing) energy potential.

Consider the potential consequences of the FRAC Act, which could strip energy-producing states of their ability to determine the regulatory landscape associated with hydraulic fracturing – a 60-year old technology that’s used to enhance energy production in 90 percent of the nation’s oil and natural gas wells.

While some opponents of responsible American energy production contend that Washington ought to step in and brush aside the authority and expertise of the states in this area, Energy In Depth continues to provide the facts, history and data needed to better understand and appreciate the record of achievement to which state officials continue to lay claim after 60 years of successful oversight.

In today’s Bismark Tribune, EID’s Lee Fuller shares some additional insight on this record:

Here are the actual facts: Fracturing has been used safely in the United States for more than 60 years, and has never in that time been directly regulated by the EPA. For decades, that responsibility has remained with states, which continue to compile a remarkable record of oversight and enforcement.

How good? In 60 years, not a single case of groundwater contamination has been credibly tied to hydraulic fracturing. Don’t believe us? Just ask the EPA — it confirmed as much to the U.S. Senate earlier this year.

Rep. Earl Pomeroy said recently that the “regulation of hydraulic fracturing is best left to the states,” and that new efforts to turn that authority over to the federal government “will do nothing to protect drinking water and will only serve to slow down development resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs and more imported oil.”

Sen. Byron Dorgan confirms that “hydraulic fracturing is not a problem,” noting there have been “many studies” that “show that it does not contaminate groundwater,” including one by the EPA in 2004.

Thanks to the Bakken Shale, North Dakota’s unemployment rate is currently at 3.6 percent. Compare that to the national rate of 9.5 percent. And what about the North Dakota budget? Thanks to the Bakken, it currently enjoys a surplus of $500 million.

Here’s what others are saying about oil and natural gas production enabled by tightly-regulated fracture stimulation technology:

ON FRACTURING’S RECORD OF SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

• Ph.D. in Geophysics says “Gas shale and hydraulic fracturing work for NY”: “No evidence directly connects injection of fracking fluid into shale with aquifer contamination. In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a study finding no confirmed instances of drinking water contamination by fracking fluids in the ground. This finding is not surprising as fracking fluid is pumped through heavy, steel pipe surrounded by a concrete liner to formations thousands of feet below aquifers. (Hornell Evening Tribune, 9/7/10)
• Surge in use of natural gas helping to lower emissions: “But now, thanks to greater geologic and scientific insight and developments in drilling and production techniques, producers are unlocking shale’s enormous potential. We don’t have to look overseas to realize the environmental and economic gains of relying on natural gas; huge shale gas reserves in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Appalachia are easily accessible – right here, right now. Shale gas has begun to tip the scales such that experts deem the boom a game-changer, the most significant energy innovation in years. (Houston Chronicle, 9/3/10)

ON JOB CREATION, ECONOMIC GROWTH

• Gas boom economic engine for company: “When a Texas gas company hired Michael Pascuzzi’s earth-moving business to build two water impoundments, he sat down at his desk and cried. The family-owned company had been headed for bankruptcy. ‘We were real close to throwing in the towel,’ said Nicholas Pascuzzi Jr., Michael’s father and president of their McDonald-based company, New Dominion Construction. Marcellus shale saved the company, fresh evidence of how the commercial discovery of gas in the deep shale formation boosted the economy of Western Pennsylvania during a national recession.” (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/8/10)
• Gov. Rendell touts Shale’s economic potential during broadcast: “There is an economic upside here that is substantial,” Gov. Ed Rendell said on the Wednesday night show, which was part of a series of PCN programming on the Marcellus Shale. (Scranton Times-Tribune, 9/9/10)
• “Atlas Energy Inc. is among those doing some hiring. The natural-gas producer, based in Moon Township, Pa., has added 160 workers this year, bringing its head count to 680. The company recently played host to a jobs fair at a Pittsburgh-area hotel, where a line to register spilled out of a ballroom and into the lobby.” (Wall Street Journal, 9/4/10)

ON EXANDED SUPPLIES OF AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE ENERGY

• Marcellus Shale production data exceeds expectations: “Marcellus Shale gas wells in Northeast and Northcentral Pennsylvania led the state in natural gas production last year, exceeding even industry predictions about the promise of the gas-rich shale, according to well production data released for the first time by the state. In the 12 months between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010, the state’s 632 producing Marcellus wells released 180 billion cubic feet of gas – an amount that more than doubles Pennsylvania’s annual natural gas production from the years before the shale exploration began. … Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for Range Resources, which reported a total production of about 35 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 402,000 barrels of natural gas liquids last year, said the report indicates what the industry believed, “which is that it is a very large natural gas discovery and could be one of the largest anywhere when it’s all said and done. It’s just going to take time.” (Scranton Times-Tribune, 9/9/10)
• What peak oil? Why an oil glut is ahead: “Part of that surplus comes from increased oil and gas production, particularly from ongoing production in the non-OPEC countries (including the U.S., where a “shale gas boom” has created a natural-gas glut). … But as the summer driving season passes and students head back to school, awareness has gradually dawned that we may be looking at an oil surplus for years to come. (CNNMoney, 9/8/10)
• Natural gas from shale rock promises energy revolution: “A new source of energy, shale gas promises to add significantly to the world’s energy reserves. … David Spigelmyer, vice-president of government relations at Chesapeake Energy said the firm’s gas extraction takes place a mile or more underground. “Groundwater rests between 300 and 500 feet and we have multiple layers of cement and steel to protect these freshwater aquifers,” he said. (BBC, 9/8/10)