Letter to EPA from 22 House Democrats urges “systematic, scientific” approach to studying HF
WASHINGTON – Any agency-led study of a key technology for safely accessing America’s abundant reserves of shale gas should use a “systematic, scientific approach that ensures transparency, accuracy and validity.” That’s the message that 22 Democratic members of the U.S. House delivered to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson this week, as her agency reportedly prepares to undertake its second comprehensive study of hydraulic fracturing in five years.
“In some ways, a letter like this wouldn’t seem necessary,” said Lee Fuller, director of Energy In Depth, a coalition of independent oil and gas producers formed earlier this year. “EPA should understand its mandate, and be prepared to execute it in a way that ensures its course of study is science-based, peer-reviewed, and informed by the knowledge and experience of experts in the field.
“We have every reason to believe it does, and it will,” added Fuller. “This letter simply articulates that expectation, and more important, shows that congressional support for the safe and responsible development of American shale gas is not a partisan affair.”
After five years of exhaustive research on the environmental performance of hydraulic fracturing, EPA released its study on the subject in 2004, concluding that the half-century-old technology “poses little or no threat” to drinking water supplies. Although no material changes to the underlying technology have been made since then, activities in opposition to fracturing have increased substantially among anti-energy activists, who have rightly identified and targeted the technique as the key to unlocking massive, job-creating natural gas resources from shale deposits all across the country.
The letter to Administrator Jackson, signed by lead-author Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) and 21 of his Democratic colleagues in the House, comes on the heels of recently passed appropriations legislation calling on EPA to re-examine several key issues surrounding the use and performance of hydraulic fracturing. An electronic copy of the letter can be downloaded HERE; its text is available below.
December 15, 2009
Dear Administrator Jackson:
The Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, signed into law on October 30, 2009, contains funding for carrying out the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) critical mission to protect human health and the environment. Pursuant to that mission, the conference committee’s report requested that the EPA conduct a study of hydraulic fracturing.
Specifically, the report states that the EPA is to “carry out a study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information.” We believe that this study should use a systematic, scientific approach that ensures transparency, accuracy and validity, so as to allow the EPA and Congress to properly evaluate the environmental performance of hydraulic fracturing.
We recommend that the EPA follow several key criteria. First, the study should rely on accepted quality assurance guidelines. The EPA should develop a reasonable and transparent study design consistent with its 2004 study and have the results properly peer-reviewed by qualified experts in accordance with standard practices. The study should also draw on the knowledge and experience of experts in hydraulic fracturing, including those in the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and state regulatory agencies. The EPA should make the study’s results available to interested members of the public for review and comment prior to finalizing them.
Second, the EPA should fully take into account previous studies on hydraulic fracturing by federal or state governmental agencies, councils, commissions or advisory committees. For example, given the significant effort associated with the 2004 EPA study, the agency should consider that study’s conclusions on hydraulic fracturing and utilize a phased approach when determining whether additional review is warranted.
Last and most importantly, the study should be based on well-recognized principles of risk assessment to determine whether individuals are exposed to substances in the hydraulic fracturing process at levels considered harmful to human health.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you to develop America’s energy resources in the most environmentally-sound manner possible.
Sincerely,
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.)
Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas) Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)
Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.)
Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.)
Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.)
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.)
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas)
Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.) Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas)
Rep. Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Continued>>
Tags: Carol Browner, energy, Energy In Depth, energyindepth.org, EPA, Hinchey, Hydraulic fracturing, Lisa Jackson, natural gas, oil and natural gas producers, Project BRIEF, SDWA, shale, taxes, www.energyindepth.org
20.May.2009admin
On Tuesday, May 19, the office of U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) issued a press release subsequent to a hearing of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee suggesting the congressman had gotten EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to “acknowledge” the need for her agency “to reexamine the Bush administration’s misguided views on the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing.”
Context
In 2005, Congress passed (with the vote of then-Sen. Barack Obama) the Energy Policy Act, a key provision of which sought to clarify Congress’s historical intent on whether the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 was ever designed to regulate hydraulic fracturing.
The answer was no, and in this case, history proved an effective guide: When SDWA was passed in 1974, hydraulic fracturing had already been in use for 25 years. Hydraulic fracturing was never considered for inclusion under SDWA jurisdiction at the time. The Act was amended in 1986, and then again in 1996. At no point in the process was the concept of SDWA regulation over fracturing ever considered a necessity – or even a possibility.
Subtext
Hydraulic fracturing is a commonly used, and increasingly critical, technology for finding and developing oil and gas resources trapped below rock that would otherwise be too deep, too hard and too expensive to access. The technique has been deployed more than a million times over the past 60 years, delivering to the American people more than 600 trillion cubic feet of American natural gas and seven billions barrels of American oil.
In 2008, a report issued by professors from Pennsylvania and New York suggested that the Marcellus Shale formation, a unit of sedimentary rock spread across much of the Appalachian Basin, could contain 516 trillion cubic feet of natural gas – enough to heat more than 60 million homes for 160 years. Without hydraulic fracturing, these resources cannot be feasibly or economically produced.
Politics
Those who oppose the responsible development of American energy have seized on hydraulic fracturing as a means of blocking reasonable access to, and production of, domestic energy resources. The centerpiece of their campaign appears to be focused on blaming hydraulic fracturing for everything from exploding houses in Ohio, to flammable water in Colorado, to hard water deposits in New York (each of these accusations, and others, are debunked here).
Despite these claims, hydraulic fracturing continues to be aggressively regulated by the states, and has compiled an unparalleled record of safety over the 60 years since its first commercial use.
Economic Impacts
More recently, legislation co-sponsored by Rep. Hinchey has sought to destroy this existing state-federal regulatory partnership in favor of an EPA-only approach. Were this and other restrictive regulatory measures to come to pass, a recent analysis showed it could result in the forced closure of more than half of America’s oil wells, a third of its gas wells, cost the federal government $4 billion in lost revenue, slash American oil production by 183,000 barrels per day, and natural gas by 245 billion cubic feet per year.
EPA on Record
In 1995, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently the president’s energy and environment czar) wrote that that her agency saw “no evidence” that hydraulic fracturing “has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water (USDW).”
“Moreover,” she added, “given the horizontal and vertical distance between the drinking water well and the closest gas production wells, the possibility of contamination or endangerment of USDWs in the area is extremely remote.”
In 2004, EPA issued a landmark report examining the question of safety as it relates to hydraulic fracturing, finding “the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids” poses “minimal threat to USDWs.” In arriving at that conclusion, EPA stated it had “reviewed more than 200 peer-reviewed publications, other research, and public comments.”
States on Record
Recognizing that hydraulic fracturing is both a safe technology and a key driver of local economic development, states such as Alabama, Louisiana, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma and Texas have recently taken up or passed resolutions informing Congress and EPA that the current regulatory relationship is working well, and that efforts to disrupt it could produce serious and long-term consequences.
In New Mexico, former U.S. Energy Secretary and current Governor Bill Richardson introduced a plan in February aimed at easing unnecessary compliance burdens, recognizing that thousands of jobs and millions in potential revenue were tied to safe, responsible, state-regulated natural gas and oil production.
Statement from Lee Fuller, policy director for Energy In Depth
“Those familiar with the history surrounding the passage and amendment of the Safe Drinking Water Act understand what this measure was intended to do, and what it clearly was not. Unfortunately, instead of taking on the issue of responsible energy development candidly and on its merits, opponents of natural resource development have decided to target the essential tools needed to safely and efficiently bring this energy to market.”
Continued>>
