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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or was it more deliberate?

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

But how did ABC News play into this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gasland 2 is scheduled to be released later this year.

—

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

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

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

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

-

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

Josh Fox (0:44): “Yes.”

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

-

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

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

-

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

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

-

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

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

-

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As today’s Bloomberg article noted,

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

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

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

–

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

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

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

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

• Reuters, “Obama backs shale gas drilling”

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

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

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

• UPI, “Obama heralds domestic natural gas”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Gerard, President and CEO, American Petroleum Institute:

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

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

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

Kathryn Klaber, President, Marcellus Shale Coalition:

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

Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, American Gas Association:

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

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

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

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

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

At EID we’re always happy to discuss how developing oil and natural gas from shale is good for the economy and energy security. But in this case, we’ll let BPC do most of the talking. From the BPC release:

• “New domestic natural gas supplies,” said Co-Chairs Dorgan and Lott, “could have a transformative effect on U.S. energy policy, our economy and our energy security…It is critical that this resource be developed responsibly so that we can gain these benefits.” (BPC release; Jan. 19, 2012)
• “Long-term lower prices for natural gas, should they continue, can bring appreciable economic benefits to many average residential electricity consumers, to key gas-intensive industries, and to the broader economy,” according to Dorgan and Lott. (BPC release; Jan. 19, 2012)
• “The BPC report finds that natural gas supply could support as much as 100 years of domestic gas demand at present levels of consumption. Natural gas extraction from shale formations has exhibited rapid growth, and currently comprises approximately one quarter of total U.S. natural gas production.” (BPC release; Jan. 19, 2012)
• “The report also shows that employment in oil and natural gas extraction and support services is up 11 percent since October 2008 (pre-recession) according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.” (BPC release; Jan. 19, 2012)
• Dorgan and Lott: “Shale oil and gas development is helping to alter America’s energy equation, boosting domestic production, and in the case of oil, reducing imports.” (BPC release; Jan. 19, 2012)
• “Industry has issued its own standards and best practices, and states have been adapting or updating regulations and participating in a voluntary program for review of state regulatory processes.” (BPC release; Jan. 19, 2012)
• “Lower natural gas prices could reduce costs for integrating intermittent renewable power generation, and offer an opportunity for co-location of natural gas and renewable facilities.” (BPC release; Jan. 19, 2012)

The full report expands on these benefits in greater detail, but it’s absolutely worth highlighting what the BPC Energy Project offers as its opening statement about the assessment:

The outlook for North America’s natural gas supply has improved dramatically in recent years as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies have made it possible to commercially develop tight and shale gas reserves. These shale gas basins are located in diverse geographical areas, including Arkansas, Colorado, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Texas and Louisiana. Effective and responsible development and use of these newly accessible resources provide an enormous opportunity for the United States and has the potential to fundamentally improve our nation’s economic and energy security.

It’s worth noting, too, that the members of BPC’s Energy Project represent a diverse set of interests and backgrounds. Membership includes President Obama’s former National Security Adviser (General James Jones, USMC (Ret.)), former EPA administrator William Reilly, and representatives from companies and organizations like Booz Allen Hamiltion, the Arkansas Public Service Commission, BNSF Railway Company, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and the American Council on Renewable Energy. Also represented: Ralph Cavanaugh, the Energy Program Director for none other than Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Last month, a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers highlighted how affordable, domestic supplies of natural gas will save U.S. manufacturers more than $11 billion per year over the next decade, in addition to creating a million new jobs during that same period. This affordable energy supply is also projected to increase disposable income for each household in the United States by as much as $2,000 per year.

So it should be no surprise, although still worth highlighting, that a new report from the White House shows how domestic manufacturing, after years of stagnation and decline, is finally on the rebound. From that report:

The manufacturing sector has recovered faster than the rest of the economy, supporting growth and job creation. Over the past two years, the economy has added 334,000 manufacturing jobs — the strongest two-year period of manufacturing job growth since the late 1990s. Manufacturing production has surged 5.7% on an annualized basis since its low in June of 2009, the fastest pace of growth of production in a decade.

And what, according to the White House, is driving that recovery?

A boom in natural gas production has supported manufacturing: The surge in domestic natural gas production can lower energy costs, reduce pollution and drive investment in the industries that supply equipment the natural gas sector and those that use natural gas as an input to production, like the chemical industry. Recent data from the Energy Information Administration indicate that by the end of 2011 natural gas extraction increased by over 24% since 2006.

Later in the report, under the heading “America’s Natural Resource Boom,” the White House report describes how expanded natural gas production, particularly from shale, has “led to rapidly growing domestic production and relatively low domestic prices for households and downstream industrial users.”

The Washington Post echoed the good news about America’s energy-led manufacturing rebirth in an editorial that ran yesterday:

The White House briefing paper that accompanied the “insourcing” event attributes much of the rebound in manufacturing to the boom in domestic natural gas production, made possible by new “fracking” technologies. The federal government didn’t do much specifically to promote fracking. Yet the process has dramatically cut the price of gas, a key industrial input, and led to spinoff employment in related industries. The White House notes that more of such development, appropriately regulated, could have “substantial” benefits to the U.S. economy. Even in a polarized Washington, everyone should be able to agree on that.

Candidly, we’re not all that interested in the specific politics of the matter, but it’s worth noting the Post’s observation that the federal government “didn’t do much” to promote developing natural gas from shale — and yet, voila!, here we are. Opponents of shale have for years labored under the delusion that the EPA should be in charge of directly regulating the process of hydraulic fracturing, calling for heavy-handed federal control on the misguided assumption that only such a system will guarantee the broadest possible benefits.

But as this White House report makes clear, shale development and hydraulic fracturing (which has been tightly regulated by the states for decades) is creating jobs and revitalizing one of America’s proudest and most critical industries. And as ANGA points out, the natural gas production at the center of this manufacturing renaissance is being done in a “safe and responsible manner,” thereby removing any need to choose between a strong economy and a clean environment.

With these facts clearly established, the question for critics is: Why should we jeopardize this bright spot in an otherwise troubled economy — facilitated by responsible, state-based rules and regulations — with a one-size-fits-all, Washington-centered regulatory regime?

The primary recipient of millions of dollars every year of anti-shale advocacy provided by the Park Foundation (also based in Ithaca), Cornell University has become to anti-energy activists what “Linebacker U” was once to Penn State — with the debunked-ad-nauseum Howarth paper on shale emissions serving as the movement’s main playbook. Ithaca also happens to be the place from which outlets like the New York Times pull “data” on mineral leasing, notwithstanding the fact that no actual Marcellus development even takes place there.

So it was no surprise when a pair of veterinarians associated with Cornell wrote an article attacking shale development for its supposed link to animal health impacts. (One of the authors, Robert Oswald is a professor at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine; the other, Michelle Bamberger, received her doctorate from Cornell.)

Now, needless to say, we don’t have any bones to pick with veterinarians, and in fact the scientific research they provide on a daily basis is without question critical to us better understanding the natural world (plus, we love dogs). But the authors here did not produce a scientific assessment, a fact they freely admit in their article. Instead, Oswald and Bamberger chose to highlight a handful of personal testimonials that cannot be independently assessed or verified because they decided to keep all relevant details anonymous. Thus, we’re left with a 27-page unscientific article making bold assertions about oil and gas development, without a single shred of data or independent corroboration to back any of it up.

While the article contains many flaws, we’ve highlighted a few of the key problems below, all of which should raise serious doubts about the “scientific” nature of this particular article.

• Right off the bat, the paper leads with a philosophical quote from Sandra Steingraber, who has described hydraulic fracturing as “the tornado on the horizon” that will destroy people’s ability to do everything, from local gardening to even riding a bicycle (Orion Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2010). Ms. Steingraber has also called for an end to all fossil fuels to “avoid human calamity.” With respect to shale development, Ms. Steingraber has stated: “If we mitigate fracking to kill fewer people, we’re still killing people” (The Vindicator, Jan. 10, 2012).

• The authors assert that developing natural gas from shale is “moving forward without benefit of carefully controlled studies of its impact on public health” (p. 52). Aside from the fact that the authors readily admit in the paper that their own conclusions are not the result of controlled experiments, their claim is simply not true. For example, a study from earlier this year by the city of Fort Worth, TX, concluded there were “no significant health risks” from nearby shale development (July 2011).

• A separate scientific assessment of the Barnett Shale in north Texas concluded: “[E]ven as natural gas development expanded significantly in the area over the past several years, key indicators of health improved across every major category during those times” (Oct. 19, 2011). The Barnett Shale is one of the most productive shale fields in the United States, with more than 15,000 producing wells.

• Instead of seeking out the answer to a legitimate question – what, if any, are the health impacts of developing natural gas from shale? – the authors simply accuse the industry of taking a position “similar to the tobacco industry that for many years rejected the link between smoking and cancer” (p. 52). The report goes on to suggest that “epidemiologic studies [that] linked smoking to human health impacts…could be used to assess the health impacts of gas drilling operations on human beings” (p. 53). It seems the authors have already made up their minds.

• The authors clearly admit that the study is not sound science: “This study is not an epidemiologic analysis of the health effects of gas drilling, which could proceed to some extent without knowledge of the details of the complex mixtures of toxicants involved. It is also not a study of the health impacts of specific chemical exposures related to gas drilling” (p. 53).

• Later in the article the authors further concede: “By the standards of a controlled experiment, this is an imperfect study, as one variable could not be changed while holding all others constant” (p. 55). Instead, the article is merely a compilation of unsourced and unverifiable case studies.

• The report conceals names and locations, which means independent review of the claims and parties involved cannot be completed; statements from the researchers about their findings are simply asserted as fact. Ironically, much of the paper is committed to critiquing the industry for not disclosing enough information to independently verify data.

• Despite its lack of scientific bent, the authors nonetheless conclude definitively that their assessment “strongly implicates exposure to gas drilling operations in serious health effects on humans, companion animals, livestock, horses, and wildlife.” They go further and, without any scientific evidence, state that “a ban on shale gas drilling is essential for the protection of public health” (p. 72).

Calling for a ban on responsible oil and gas development without any scientific basis? Wait, we’ve heard this one before…

Again, those interested in the supposed health impacts of developing natural gas from shale should reference this assessment from October, in which two public health professionals studied conditions in the Barnett shale region of north Texas. Their conclusion? Even though the area has been one of the highest gas producing regions of the country, “key indicators of health improved across every major category.” That followed a study from last summer for the city of Fort Worth which “did not reveal any significant health threats” from shale development.

And now it appears that the revolutionary offspring of the Soviet Union — Fidel Castro’s Cuba — is also joining the ranks of opposition to shale development. Reuters reports that Castro, in a recent column that he penned over the holidays, suggests that shale development will lead to an “inexorable march toward the abyss.” The Cuban dictator arrived at this position after digesting what we here in the States refer to as “debunked talking points.” From the Reuters piece:

Shale gas production is criticized in some quarters because it requires extensive “fracking,” which uses water, sand and chemicals to fracture the rock where the gas is trapped to allow it to flow out of the well. Fracking, opponents say, contaminates groundwater sources and can cause other problems.

Castro sided with the critics, quoting reports on the negative effects of fracking and research that said shale gas emits more greenhouse gases than gas produced from conventional wells.

Statist regimes are known for their isolation and reluctance to accept facts and data from other parts of the world, especially information that would undermine the regime’s ideological, often plutocratic bent. In this case, though, it appears the Bearded One is involved in a little bit of cherry-picking — grabbing talking points off opposition websites without taking the time to research the issue the whole way through.

To wit: Castro makes reference in his column to the GHG profile of the development of energy from shale, a direct reference to a study issued last year by the Park Foundation-funded “scientists” at Cornell — a paper that has been debunked more thoroughly than geocentricity. Had Castro done his homework, he would’ve known that report rests on such shoddy ground that the authors’ own colleagues took issue with its findings, noting that Howarth and Ingraffea use “implausibly high leakage rates” and “dismiss the impact of existing technology” for reducing emissions.

Castro also expresses concern about water contamination from oil and natural exploration — perhaps forgetting that his country has leased thousands of onshore acres out to foreign companies over the past five years to help the regime develop its own resources domestically. But the facts clearly show that hydraulic fracturing is safe and does not present a credible risk for water contamination. Regulators from nearly a dozen states have affirmed the safety of hydraulic fracturing, as has the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on numerous occasions.

For nearly forty years, Cuba and the Soviet Union joined hands across the Atlantic to oppose western civilization. The private sector became the bête noire for both countries, with Cuba and the USSR consistently looking for evidence that would undermine economic freedom (they failed). But with the fall of the Soviet Union, the legitimacy of communism also crumbled under the weight of a superior economic model: the market economy. The ideological link between Russia and communist Cuba was strained, if not completely severed.

But shale development represents a new bond between Cuba and Russia, a source of joint opposition that is, once again, premised on nothing more than flawed logic and a commitment to undermining a superior (and safer) economic system.

As they say, the more things change the more they stay the same.

READ MORE

• EID Blog: Shale Puts Russia, Saudis on the Defensive
• Reuters: “Fidel Castro says world marching into abyss with shale gas” (Jan. 5, 2012)
• WSJ: “Russia Sounds Alarm on Shale Gas” (Nov. 30, 2011)
• EID Fact Check: Five Things to Know about the Cornell Shale Study

Update VII (9:05 a.m. EST; Jan. 18) — Wyoming’s governor, Matt Mead, has sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requesting quicker answers to questions from Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) about the Pavillion draft report. “I understood the EPA would timely respond to these questions and requests,” Mead writes. “However, the majority of those questions remain outstanding” (the comment period officially ends on January 27th). Mead has also asked that the EPA extend the comment period by 30 days to “provide the public and the peer panel [an] opportunity to review additional information provided by EPA’s response and to consider it in their comments.” Taking these steps will facilitate “an unbiased, scientifically supportable finding open to the public,” according to Mead. E&E News (subs. req’d) also has a story on Mead’s letter.

Update VI (1:05 p.m. EST; Dec. 27) — Another excellent hit in the Casper paper this morning, this one a news article by reporter Jeremy Fugleberg laying out a bunch of new information that futher undermines EPA’s case on Pavillion. According to the piece: “EPA’s own data — including details not mentioned in the draft report — indicates the agency’s conclusions are partially based on improperly analyzed samples from six private drinking-water wells and two EPA-drilled deep monitoring wells in Pavillion.” Click here for the full article.

Update V (11:50 a.m. EST; Dec. 26) — Must-read editorial in the Casper Star-Tribune posted earlier today in which the newspaper cites EPA for “terrible execution” of its draft report on Pavillion, suggesting further that “process and politics have trumped good science.” The paper also highlights EPA’s continued unwillingness to answer even the most basic questions that have been raised about the methodology used in assembling the report — questions first posed by EID earlier this month (see below). Click here to view the Casper editorial.

Update IV (11:27 a.m. EST; Dec. 22) — Earlier this week, Wyoming governor Matthew Mead sent a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson laying out a series of questions regarding the agency’s draft paper on Pavillion.  In the letter, the governor stresses the importance of sound science and collaboration with state experts in arriving at a final determination. The governor also asks Administrator Jackson to clearly define what the “peer-review” process will look like; remarkably, EPA has yet to even inform the state what it intends to do on that issue.

In related news, Encana this week pulled together a conference call with the media to detail the myriad technical issues that have eroded confidence in the validity of EPA’s draft finding. On the call David Stewart, Group Lead on Environment, Health and Safety (North Rockies) outlined a litany of errors, discrepancies and oversights with EPA’s study efforts.  Among the highlights:

• EPA has found no indication of oil and gas impacts in residential water wells in Pavilion consistent with all tests conducted over 50 years
• EPA finding of high PH is attributed to Potassium Hydroxide. Encana states that chemical, used in extremely sparse quantities has a PH between 6.5 and 7.0 which is near neutral.  However, materials used in developing EPA’s monitoring wells, like dense soda ash, have a much more pronounced PH value and more closely matches EPA findings
• Potassium and chloride presence, which EPA attributes to hydraulic fracturing operations through “lines of reasoning”, are naturally occurring in the area which has been noted by USGS
• Synthetic compounds EPA declares are related to hydraulic fracturing operations were never used in operations there including Tert-butyl; alcohol and ketones among others.  Additional contaminants presence was also called into question given significant variability in findings from multiple certified labs

For more information on Encana’s detailed technical response please see their briefing document which can be found here

UPDATE III (10:42 a.m. EST; Dec. 13) — New details starting to emerge on the process EPA will follow related to comment solicitation/collection and peer-review associated with its draft Pavillion paper. Formal notice of the comment period is slated to run in the Federal Register tomorrow, but you can get a sneak preview of what it will say here. Among the items in the document that jump out to us:  EPA’s declaration that the draft report “does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination.” Of course, EPA also says in this notice that the Pavillion draft has ”not been formally disseminated by EPA. “ Guess they’re not counting that press release they sent out to 50,000 people last Thursday.

UPDATE II (11:32 a.m. EST, Dec. 12) — Not sure how we missed this one over the weekend, but in a story posted Friday on the website of the Casper Star-Tribune, Interior secretary Ken Salazar suggests “the jury is still out” regarding the accuracy and veracity of EPA’s draft report on Pavillion. According to the secretary: “We’ll see what happens with this Pavillion study. And I think it’s important that the real facts finally get to the table with respect to the peer review and seeing whether there’s something specific with respect to that basin that is different from what we have across the country.” Click here to view the story.

UPDATE (8:55 a.m. EST, Dec. 12) — Meaty press release from Encana just crossed the wires this morning; click here to take a look.  One of the things in here that really caught our eye — and which wasn’t mentioned in our issue alert below — is the fact that EPA apparently conceded to “finding” petroleum-based contaminants in ”blank” water samples.  Blank samples, according to the release, are “ultra purified water samples commonly used in testing to ensure no contamination from field sampling procedures.” How is it possible to detect compounds of concern from crystal-clear, ultra-purified water? Good question.

–

Call it a sign of the “Times,” let’s say, that less than 24 hours removed from the release of EPA Region 8’s report on groundwater sampling near Pavillion, Wyo., nearly a thousand different news stories have been generated — in 12 different countries, and best we can tell, four different languages. But set aside the breathless headlines for a moment and the triumphant quotes from a small segment of folks committed to ending the responsible development of natural gas, and one’s left with a pretty straightforward question: Is EPA right? And if so, what exactly does that mean moving forward?

Of course, before you can answer the second question, it’d be helpful if you had a good answer for the first. And the truth is, as we sit here today, less than 20 hours A.P. (After Pavillion), we simply don’t. What we do know, however, even at these early stages, is that several of the assertions put forth in EPA’s report yesterday don’t quite square with the facts as they actually exist on the ground out there. Because of that, a number of folks are starting to ask some pretty basic questions about what the agency found and how it went about finding it. Below, a few of the most obvious:

1) Why the huge difference between what EPA found in its monitoring wells and what was detected in private wells from which people actually get their water?

• Contrary to what was reported yesterday, the compounds of greatest concern detected by EPA in Pavillion weren’t found in water wells that actually supply residents their water – they were detected by two “monitoring wells” drilled by EPA outside of town.

• After several rounds of EPA testing of domestic drinking water wells in town, only one organic compound (bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) was found to exceed state or federal drinking water standards – an additive in plastics and one of the most commonly detected organic compounds in water. According to EPA: “Detections in drinking water wells are generally below established health and safety standards.”

• Bruce Hinchey, president of Petroleum Association of Wyoming: “Let me be clear, the EPA’s findings indicate that there is no connection between oil and natural gas operations and impacts to domestic water wells.” (PAW press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

• In contrast, EPA found “a wide variety of organic chemicals” in its two monitoring wells, with greater concentrations found in the deeper of the two. The only problem? EPA drilled its monitoring wells into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation. Think it’s possible that could explain the presence of hydrocarbons?

• According to governor of Wyoming: “The study released today from EPA was based on data from two test wells drilled in 2010 and tested once that year and once in April, 2011. Those test wells are deeper than drinking wells. The data from the test wells was not available to the rest of the working group until a month ago.” (Gov. Mead press release, issued Dec. 8, 2011)

2) After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”? (video available here)

• Of note, Administrator Jackson offered those comments to a reporter from energyNOW! a full week after Region 8 publicly released its final batch of Pavillion data. In that interview, Jackson indicates that she personally analyzed the findings of the report, and was personally involved in conversations and consultations with staff, local officials, environmental groups, the state and the operator.

• After reviewing all that information, and conducting all those interviews, if the administrator believed that test results from EPA’s monitoring wells posed a danger to the community, why would she say the opposite of that on television?

• And if she believed that the state of Wyoming had failed to do its job, why would she – in that same interview – tell energyNOW! that “you can’t start to talk about a federal role [in regulating fracturing] without acknowledging the very strong state role.” (2:46) A week later, why did she choose to double-down on those comments in an interview with Rachel Maddow, telling the cable host that “states are stepping up and doing a good job”? (9:01, aired Nov. 21, 2011)

3) Did all those chemicals that EPA used to drill its monitoring wells affect the results?

• Diethanolamine? Anionic polyacrylamide? Trydymite? Bentonite? Contrary to conventional wisdom, chemicals are needed to drill wells, not just fracture them – even when the purpose of those wells has nothing to do with oil or natural gas development.

• In this case, however, EPA’s decision to use “dense soda ash” as part of the process for drilling its monitoring wells could have proved a bad one.

• One of the main justifications EPA uses to implicate hydraulic fracturing as a source of potential contamination is the high pH readings it says it found in its monitoring wells. But dense soda ash has a recorded pH (11.5) very similar to the level found in the deep wells, creating the possibility that the high pH recorded by EPA could have been caused by the very chemicals it used to drill its own wells.

• According to Tom Doll, supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: “More sampling is needed to rule out surface contamination or the process of building these test wells as the source of the concerning results.” (as quoted in governor’s press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

4) Why is the author so confident that fracturing is to blame when most of his actual report focuses on potential issues with casing, cement and legacy pits?

• The report singles-out old legacy pits (which the operator had already voluntarily placed in a state remediation program prior to EPA’s investigation) as the most obvious source of potential contamination. These decades-old pits, which are obviously no longer used, have nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing.

• From the report (page xi): “Detection of high concentrations of benzene, xylenes, gasoline range organics, diesel range organics, and total purgeable hydrocarbons in ground water samples from shallow monitoring wells near pits indicates that pits are a source of shallow ground water contamination in the area of investigation. Pits were used for disposal of drilling cuttings, flowback, and produced water. There are at least 33 pits in the area of investigation.“

• From the report’s concluding paragraph: “[T]his investigation supports recommendations made by the U.S. Department of Energy Panel on … greater emphasis on well construction and integrity requirements and testing. As stated by the panel, implementation of these recommendations would decrease the likelihood of impact to ground water and increase public confidence in the technology.” (p. 39)

5) 2-BE or not 2-BE? That is the question.

• EPA indicates that it found tris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphate in a few domestic water wells. What the agency doesn’t mention is that this chemical is a common fire retardant found in plastics and plastic components used in drinking water wells. It’s not 2-BE, which, although also a common material, is sometimes associated with the completions process.

• According to EPA, in one of the eight samples collected, a small amount of 2-BE was detected. Interestingly, two other EPA labs that measured for the same exact compound reported not being able to detect it in the duplicate samples they were given.

• According to Wyo. governor Mead: “Members of the [Pavillion] working group also have questions about the compound 2-BE, which was found in 1 sample … while other labs tested the exact same water sample and did not find it.” (Mead press release, Dec. 8, 2011)

6) Is EPA getting enough potassium?

• Several times in its report, EPA notes that potassium and chloride levels were found to be elevated in its monitoring wells. But just because you have potassium and chloride doesn’t mean you’ve got potassium chloride, a different chemical entirely and one that’s sometimes associated with fracturing solutions. Nowhere in its report does EPA suggest that potassium chloride was detected.

• According to several USGS studies of groundwater quality in the area, variable — and in some cases, high — concentrations of potassium and chloride have been detected in Pavillion-area groundwater for more than 20 years. (USGS 1991, 1992)

• Interestingly, the potassium levels detected in EPA’s first monitoring well declined by more than 50 percent from October 2010 to April 2011, while the potassium level in EPA’s second monitoring well increased during that same period. Only natural variations in groundwater flow and/or composition could have accounted for this disparity.

READ MORE

• Statement from Wyo. Governor: Draft EPA report “scientifically questionable”
• Statement from PAW president: “The draft report coming out of the EPA is reckless.”
• EID issue alert: Five Quick Facts on Pavillion
• Letter: 2009 letter from Encana to Pavillion community

In that report, authors Partridge and Weinstein take issue with the methodology employed in a study we prepared in September for the Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP). Throughout the text, the authors both state and imply that our analysis isn’t “independent,” presumably because our work drew on data and funding provided by Ohio energy producers. It also suggests that the methods we use to arrive at our conclusions are “old” and “unreliable.” Neither assertion is accurate.

It’s important to note that the primary intent of our research project is to prepare Ohioans for what is expected to be a significant upsurge in activities associated with energy development in the state. This study was not prepared for the purpose of seeking additional research grants, nor does it advocate in favor of one particular energy source, or one particular energy policy, over another.  The purpose of the study is to inform users about the general costs and benefits of potential Utica development.  It is in this sense that it can be used as an aid in decision-making, providing information on the extent of support a community or region might be able to provide when planning for different development possibilities.

It’s also worth pointing out that we only modeled what the first five years of Utica development might look like, drawing on the best information available to us. Over time, it is of course true that direct returns from the construction and completion of oil and gas wells will naturally diminish. Ohio will not drill 1,600 new wells each year ad infinitum. However, the energy produced from those wells is expected to be produced for several decades, and if it does, those volumes are expected to apply downward pressure on energy prices, generating significant cost-savings for downstream users, and creating high-wage, long-term jobs in the process.

According to Partridge, et al., a more preferred approach to modeling the potential economic impacts of development would entail waiting several years until more data comes in, and then preparing analyses comparing shale-producing counties to those without activity. As a general proposition, we agree. But unfortunately, we do not have access to a crystal ball. In absence of the ability to collect data that has not yet been generated, we apply a standard input-output methodology to characterize the potential for jobs and inter-industry purchases in Ohio. Armed with these forecasts, Ohioans can be trained to work in and with this industry, and share in its growth. And investors can make better, more-informed decisions regarding their investments with forward looking estimates.

Specific to the Partridge paper, the authors use what they admit is a rule of thumb multiplier of two and assume that direct expenditures are only found in the oil and gas / mining sector. (p. 12)  In fact, the Considine study (and ours, indirectly) uses a detailed expenditure budget that allows us to appropriately spread investments by the industry across a variety of industries. So, in fact, we (and Considine) also account for direct expenditures in many other industries.  Moreover, the use of the REMI model is far different than the use of IMPLAN or RIMS multipliers.  The REMI model is a dynamic forecasting and policy analysis tool that incorporates the complete inter-industry relationships found in input-output models. It, however, integrates input-output, computable general equilibrium, econometric, and economic geography methodologies. It takes into account interregional inter-industrial connections; commuting information, job relocation and population changes.

Considine uses a multiplier of 2.07, well within range of the 2.0 multiplier used by Partridge, et al. A simple calculation of direct expenditures yields at least 100,000 jobs. Assuming each well costs $10 million to site, construct, drill, complete and prepare for production – we multiply that figure by 1,650 wells and then divide it by $150,000 output per employee. Hence our estimate of 110,000 jobs.

Regarding Partridge’s assertion that a multiplier of two is on the high end, the Federal Reserve System’s Fiscal Impact User Guide states:

[N]ational output multipliers tend to range between 2.5 and 4.0 depending on the industry.

That is, it is assumed that each $1.00 of direct activity spurs $1.50 to $3.00 of indirect and induced activity (be it output, wages, income, or employment).

Partridge asserts that we used the “old” input output method that does not account for what would have happened without the energy development.  (footnote, p 5, and p.11, paragraph 3).  Of course, in our study, we explain that using REMI, we report the difference between the baseline growth (what would occur if the Shale investment would not take place) and the stimulated growth (p. 11 of our report).

In response to Partridge’s statement that “Foremost, impact studies are not viewed as best practice by academic economists and would be rarely used in peer reviewed studies by urban and regional economists.” There is an entire professional association devoted to the study and refinement of these methods called the International Input-Output Association. It publishes a double-peer reviewed journal entitled Journal of the International Input-Output Association and its editorial board includes a member of Ohio State faculty.  Moreover, the Journal of Regional Science recently reviewed an update of a classic input-output text by Miller and Blair (Volume 51, Issue 1, pages 196–197, February 2011).  The reviewer notes:

“While selected material in the opening chapters will be useful for undergraduate teaching, we expect the extensions in the second part of the book will be most useful for postgraduates, researchers, and academics.”

Partridge is an editor for the Journal of Regional Science.

Partridge additionally indicates that we did not adequately explain the meaning of “created and supported” when we write of jobs (footnote 2, page 5.).  We do offer an explanation of employment, but not specifically created and supported.  We define employment in terms of jobs. This includes full-time, part time, and temporary positions. A job is equal to the annual average of monthly jobs in that industry (the same definition used by QCEW, BLS, and BEA nationally). Thus, one job lasting 12 months is equal to two jobs lasting six months each, which in turn is equal to three jobs lasting four months each. A job can be either full-time or part-time.

Partridge, however, conveniently uses the word “jobs” throughout the paper and refers to BLS job growth over a six-year period when inaccurately calculating his rule of thumb multiplier (p. 12, Partridge report). His report uses employment in two industrial sectors and ignores other industries that are involved in direct spending associated with shale-related drilling and exploration.

In short, although our study benefited from insight, data and funding provided by industry, it is a study that is sound in its methods and reasonable in its conclusions. Our firm could not have built the reputation that it has over the past 15 years if we were to compromise on this approach. You can be assured that in this case, as in all others, we did not.