A tale only believable in Washington. Several outspoken congressmen who are adamantly critical of clean-burning American natural gas development, particularly the use of hydraulic fracturing – a critical oil and natural gas stimulation technology that’s helping the nation realize ‘enormous’ energy security benefits, as President Obama said in a speech this week – have recently introduced legislation, which they claim, would end Clean Air Act “exemptions” governing oil and natural gas development in the United States.
In a March 17 press release, Congressman Jared Polis (D-Colo.), citing the imperative to ensure air quality safety, says this about the BREATHE Act:
“It’s simply common sense to ensure that we monitor extremely dangerous emissions, equip communities in heavy drilling areas with the tools they need to stay safe, and reverse these exemptions to the Clean Air Act.”
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), in the same press release, adds this:
“Whether you’re drilling oil or gas, toxic fumes released in the process pollute the air we breathe, causing health problems for workers at the drilling sites and nearby residents. The BREATHE Act is another commonsense bill that will make sure that oil and gas companies use the best available technology to rid their emissions of harmful pollutants and protect our air and the people who breathe it.”
Subsequently, Energy In Depth completely demystified the host of baseless claims put forth by BREATHE Act proponents (all 8 of them in the entire U.S. House of Representatives). As the FRAC Act would fundamentally rewrite the Safe Drinking Water Act, the BREATHE Act aims to give unelected Washington bureaucrats new, unprecedented authority to regulate – and therefore impede – job-creating American energy production.
Fast forward a few weeks. In a speech this week at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Rep. Polis – flanked by Steve Fox, director of public affairs at the National Cannabis Industry Association (no confirmation on any relation to Gasland’s Josh Fox) – renewed efforts to legalize marijuana.
Politico’s senior political reporter Ben Smith has a great scoop on Rep. Polis’ efforts today (as does the trustworthy “Weed Blog”):
In several interviews this week, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) is pushing for marijuana decriminalization or legalization — a fight that has unfolded mostly in the states, attracting few politicians at the federal level willing to talk about the issue.
“Drugs are fundamentally a health issue,” said Polis on MBNBC. “Is there an abuse of drugs? Absolutely. Do people abuse alcohol, tobacco and marijuana? Yes. Should we have a national health strategy around reducing that? Yes. Does throwing people in prison for smoking a joint make sense? No.”
And Polis tells the hip-hop magazine The Source that legalizing marijuana could actually even lead to urban renewal and greening.
“Marijuana farming in major urban centers would increase green space and make urban renewal profitable in the short and long-term,” said Polis.
“Urban renewal”? You can’t make this stuff up.
Importantly, though, how does Rep. Polis square his concerns about the impact clean-burning American natural gas production has on air emissions with the widely accepted fact that marijuana use can be devastating to human health?
Here’s what the American Lung Association has to say about the impact marijuana use can have on health:
Health Hazards of Smoking Marijuana
Marijuana smoke contains a greater amount of carcinogens than tobacco smoke. In addition, marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, further increasing the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana use is not only associated with adverse physical effects, but also mental, emotional and behavioral changes.
People who smoke marijuana frequently, but do not smoke tobacco, have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. Many of these extra sick days are due to respiratory illnesses.
And Harvard University experts determined the following about marijuana use:
The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer. … It should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar.
While today is April Fool’s Day, this is no joke. However, such political grandstanding surely is.
China’s rapacious appetite for economic growth, job creation and overall global dominance is no secret, nor is its playbook for achieving those goals. Affordable, stable supplies of energy – more than anything else – are the foundation of strong and competitive economies. Leaders in China understands this full-well, and is moving forward aggressively – with the help of the White House – to put their nation a path toward prosperity and unmatched growth.
While shale gas has been termed a “game-changer” in the United States, this clean-burning resource is also making waves in the global energy markets. In a report today from People’s Daily Online, under the headline “Sinopec to boost unconventional gas production capacity by 2015,” the news outlet reports this:
Sinopec Group (Sinopec), the country’s second-largest oil company, plans to increase its unconventional gas production capacity to more than 2.5 billion cubic meters annually by the end of 2015, a move in line with China’s efforts to diversify its energy mix.
Sinopec will speed up the development of unconventional gas including shale gas and coalbed methane during the central government’s 12th Five-Year Plan period (2011-15).
Development of unconventional oil and gas will become an important growth engine for the company’s business in the next five to 10 years, the company said in a statement on its website Tuesday.
The report highlights the critical role American-created hydraulic fracturing technologies will be for the Chinese to unlock their shale gas reserves and the role those resources will play in fueling its economic future:
Analysts said using more advanced foreign technology in the sector would accelerate the exploitation of China’s gas reserves.
Tight gas is natural gas contained in rock that must be fractured or broken open before it can flow easily to production wells.
Use of unconventional gas would be an effective substitute to meet China’s rising natural gas demand, said analysts.
You see, at the same time the White House is lending a hand to the Chinese to help tap their job-creating shale gas reserves, some in Congress (and other out-of-the-mainstream advocacy groups) are working to make it more difficult – or altogether impossible – for American energy resources to be safely leveraged into jobs, security and competitiveness. Hard to believe, isn’t it.
Maurice Hinchey, a senior member of the U.S. House whose district encompasses much of the Marcellus Shale along New York’s southern tier, is working feverishly – along with Rep. Dianna DeGette (Colo.) and Sen. Bob Casey (Pa.) – to effectively strip energy-producing states of their ability to regulate fracturing. Their bill – the FRAC Act – would for the first time in the history of the Safe Drinking Water Act give the EPA in Washington outright authority to regulate (not to mention permit) every aspect of the fracture stimulation process.
How come? Glad you asked. Are energy-producing states – who tightly regulated this practice – not pulling their weight? Not according to the EPA’s water regulator, and growing chorus of congressional Democrats, Republicans and governors.
Would there be any added environmental benefit should the FRAC Act become law? Afraid not.
But don’t these FRAC Act-backers just want to know what fluids are used in the process? Well, that’s already well-known, actually – 99.5 percent water and everyday playground sand, along with other additives commonly found in ice cream, gummy bears and peanut butter (scary stuff, huh).
The aim of the FRAC Act is not to make our water resources any cleaner or more secure. It’s aims is to make domestic energy production more burdensome.
China understands the benefits to stable and affordable energy supplies. If you do as well, then send Congress a message that the FRAC Act will cost jobs, increases our foreign energy dependence and put America in a weaker position in the global economy.
U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu knows a thing or two about what it takes to safely produce energy in America today. As senior senator from Louisiana, she represents the fourth-leading petroleum-producing state in the country – and that doesn’t even account for what’s produced along the federal OCS off the Pelican State’s shores.
Now, with the emergence of the Haynesville Shale in the northwest part of the state, Louisiana is poised to be a national leader in the development of natural gas as well. It’s an effort supported by Democrats and Republicans – and, not for nuthin’, probably a half-decent, instructive example for folks in hyper-polarized Washington to take an look at. Looking for new jobs? Congressman Steve Scalise writes that well-regulated energy production in the Haynesville “created almost 33,000 jobs and generated $3.2 billion into our state’s economy” in a recent Energy In Depth “Guest Blog” post.
Unfortunately, rather than acknowledging these economic and energy security benefits, and promoting them as aggressively as they can, some in Washington are working to add layers of burdensome, duplicative and unnecessary regulations to the 60-year old technology called hydraulic fracturing.
Landrieu, a member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources panel, “made a stop by the Haynesville Shale play near Mansfield Monday.” NWLA News tells us what comes next:
Fracking critics claim the process can contaminate drinking water. However, in 2004 the Environmental Protection Agency found that the process does not contaminate drinking water and needed no further study. “There are people in Washington want to claim that fracking cannot be done environmentally safely and they’re wrong it can be done in an environmentally safe way,” said Landrieu.
The Shreveport Times reports this about Sen. Landrieu’s recent visit to DeSoto Parish:
County officials in New York “need to hear from you that it is not dangerous,” [Sen. Landrieu] said of the fracing process.
Hear that, Sen. Casey? Ask someone who knows: Hydraulic fracturing is safe. It’s heavily regulated. And it’s helping to create tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs, and delivering stable, clean-burning, homegrown energy to families and small businesses at the same time.
Brad Gill, a member of Energy In Depth and executive director of New York’s Independent Oil & Gas Association, sheds some additional light on the supposedly “secret” aspects of this commonly used process, in the form of a letter-to-the-editor in the Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin today:
Your readers should know that the fluids used in the fracturing process are made of more than 99.5 percent water and sand. It’s true that chemical additives are commonly used in the process, but great efforts are made to reduce the likelihood those ingredients would ever come in contact with people, animals and all sources of fresh water. These ingredients – even those that are no longer used – are available on the DEC Web site.
The writer is correct on one thing: “Rural landowners badly need an economic break.” Safe, environmentally sound, well-regulated natural gas production – enabled by hydraulic fracturing – represents such a break.
But the tens of the thousands of jobs being created through environmentally sound shale gas development are not limited exclusively to the energy industry. Scores of good-paying, permanent indirect jobs are being created at breakneck rates. Despite this, some continue to lodge baseless attacks on hydraulic fracturing, the linchpin to shale gas development.
At a recent meeting with the Wilkes-Barre (PA) Times Leader editorial board, senior American Petroleum Institute economist Sara Banaszak said “this concern [about hydraulic fracturing] is misplaced,” noting that the fluids used in the process – made up of more than 99.5 percent water and sand – “are the same chemicals we see in our everyday use.”
As it relates to the new jobs associated with responsible shale gas development, Ms. Banaszak said the “economic potential cannot be ignored.” This from the paper:
For example, 50,000 jobs were created in Pennsylvania as a result of natural gas drilling in 2009. That number is expected to rise to 98,000 this year. That economic boost is why Pennsylvania lawmakers cannot afford to impose a severance tax on natural gas companies. “If you impose a tax, you get less investment and the government could see less revenue,” she said.
“This is an opportunity that is sort of unprecedented,” Banaszak concluded.” Not just for Pennsylvania, but for the entire country.”
Speaking of indirect economic benefits tied directly to shale gas production, the Associated Press reports this yesterday under the headline “Railroads booming with Marcellus Shale business”:
“The need to transport millions of pounds of sand and other materials to the rapidly increasing number of Marcellus Shale natural gas well drilling sites in Pennsylvania is bringing big business to railroads.
The new business is arriving as Pennsylvania’s railroad operators – the state has the most in the nation – were suffering shrinking demand for loads of traditional materials, such as coal.
Lorain, Ohio’s Morning Journal writes this a recent editorial:
Lorain seems to be in the right spot to capitalize on the nation’s desire to drill for more clean-energy natural gas.
U.S. Steel is considering spending $250 million to expand its Lorain Tubular Operations because of the Lorain plant’s proximity to an immense Appalachian Marcellus shale deposits that include parts of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York.
Natural gas is locked in that shale and energy companies need specialized steel tubing to drill for it. Some of the best steel tubing is made by U.S. Steel in Lorain.
Local government and business leaders should work together to make the U.S. Steel expansion in Lorain a reality.
And in a recent Philadelphia Bulletin op-ed, the Commonwealth Foundation’s Elizabeth Bryan writes this about responsible shale gas development:
The Marcellus Shale boom is accomplishing something that all of Governor Rendell’s economic development programs cannot: permanent jobs and more state tax revenue without a dime of taxpayer subsidies. Resisting the calls to tax natural gas producers will ensure Pennsylvania maintains a competitive edge without compromising our fiscal health or natural resources.
EID Fact Check: Congressman Hinchey Talks HF on CNBC, Checks Facts at the Door
CNBC’s Cramer on EPA’s new HF study: “Even though we can’t find a single documented case of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing, I’m concerned this could be the beginning of process that creates more regulatory hurdles for natural gas companies, and makes it more difficult to drill in the United States.”
Cramer: “Steve Heare is the EPA’s director of drinking water protection. He recently said that the states our ‘doing a good job already regulating hydraulic fracturing,’ and he added that there is no evidence to suggest the process contaminates water … He would seem to be a knowledgeable figure. He’s the drinking water protection person at the EPA.”
WASHINGTON – Now we know why they call it “Mad” Money. Yesterday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y) appeared on Jim Cramer’s CNBC financial show to discuss shale gas exploration, hydraulic fracturing, and his ongoing and very active efforts to prevent clean-burning, American made shale gas resources from being produced in New York, or anywhere else.
Actually, Rep. Hinchey disputed that characterization of his intent, offered up throughout by the host. In reality, he said, he’s just interested in “making sure that drilling occurs” and that the exploration process “is not impinged upon” – notwithstanding that his bill, known as the FRAC Act, would impede efforts to safely explore for natural gas in the very best case, and outright ban those efforts in the worst (and most plausible) case.
Keep in mind, this is the same congressman who suggested to one online writer that “very substantial economic elements,” and sinister ones at that, were involved in exploiting the shale gas revolution “for their own economic advantages.” And oh yeah, this is also the fella who once famously said: “I do not think that relying on foreign oil impacts our security. I would hope…that there might be a new approach to this whole issue and that approach would essentially mean let us import as much [energy] as we possibly can.” Yikes.
That aside, let’s see how the congressman’s latest performance holds up under an EID fact check:
HINCHEY CLAIM
“A significant portion of the Clean Water Drinking Act [sic.] was repealed in 2005. And that provision in 2005 said that people who are drilling don’t have to tell anybody what they’re putting into the ground.”
FACT
The bipartisan 2005 energy bill, supported by then Sen. Barack Obama, clarified that Congress never intended hydraulic fracturing to be regulated under Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). If Congress ever intended the SDWA to extend beyond its original scope and cover the fracturing of energy wells, it certainly had plenty of chances to make that view known.
Passed in 1974, SDWA has been amended a whopping eight separate times over the past 35 years (’74, ’77, ’79, ‘80, ‘86, ‘88, ’96, ‘05), but at no time during that extended run was the concept of regulating fracturing under the Act a significant component of the debate. And that’s true even though at the time of the bill’s passage in ‘74, fracturing had already been in commercial use for 25 years.
What’s changed in 35 years? Not a whole lot on the technological side, with the notable exception of exciting advancements in horizontal drilling techniques that allow producers today to access 10 times the energy by drilling 1/10 the number of wells.
So again: Fracturing was never regulated under SDWA – and, by that definition, could never have been granted an “exemption.” How can you be exempt from something that never covered you in the first place?Dennis Lathem, executive director of the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama, sheds some additional light on the 2005 bipartisan legislation:
“Hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The 2005 Energy Policy Act contained language clarifying this intent. The language was necessary because a federal circuit court ruled (incorrectly in my opinion) the temporary process of hydraulic fracturing is the same as the permanent disposal of wastes underground and is therefore covered by the SDWA.
“The fact is, if the language clarifying hydraulic fracturing had not been in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, every state in the union would be in exactly the same regulatory posture as they are today, except Alabama.”
Also, click HERE to view a comprehensive timeline illustrating fracturing’s long and clear record of effective regulation.
HINCHEY CLAIM
“It was one of the drillers that put 12 homes into jeopardy [in Pennsylvania], and which caused a lot of contamination of drinking water supplies.”
FACT
PA DEP: “Responding to recent concerns expressed by residents of Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, the Department of Environmental Protection has collected dozens of water supply samples in the Carter Road area and determined that nearby gas well hydro fracturing activity has not impacted local wells.” (Release, 3/27/09)
HINCHEY CLAIM
“I don’t think what I’m doing is going to cause the drilling in New York to be hesitated in any way, or stopped or done more slowly.”
FACT
The FRAC Act could give EPA outright authority to regulate fracturing in energy-producing states, stripping states of their ability to closely and effectively regulate this technology. In an editorial entitled “Power play: Fracturing plan wrong, indefensible,” The Oklahoman writes this:
“The latest power grab is an attempt to switch regulation of hydraulic fracturing from the states to the Environmental Protection Agency. … Some believe the technique poses harm to drinking water supplies. U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee, disagrees and says the regulatory shift would be “disastrous for the industry.” … Legislation has been introduced in Congress to require companies to disclose the chemicals used in the process and allow the EPA to ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is a solution in search of a problem.” (6/15/09)
HINCHEY CLAIM
“There’s a lot of examples where drilling has caused damage to drinking water supplies.”
FACT
At a recent Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) asked senior EPA and USGS officials if “Any one of you know of one case of ground water contamination that has resulted from hydraulic fracturing?” Here are the answers:
Peter Silva (EPA Water Chief): Not that I’m aware of, no.
Sen. Inhofe: Ms. Giles?
Cynthia Giles (EPA Compliance Administrator): I understand there’s some anecdotal evidence, but I don’t know that it’s been firmly established.
Sen. Inhofe: So the answer is no, you don’t know of it.
Cynthia Giles nods.
Sen. Inhofe: Alright, Mr. Larsen?
Matthew Larsen (Assoc. Director for Water, EPA): I’ll have to respond in writing, I don’t, I’m not aware of all of our studies on that topic.
Click HERE to view this exchange online.
Rep. Hinchey publishes detailed list of additions to draft DEC Marcellus regs; turns out most are already in the DEC document
Keep Reading »
EPA vs. EPA: The More Things Stay the Same, the More They Change
EPA VS. EPA
Keep Reading »
Roundabout Theatre: NY Rep. Wants D.C. to Tell Commission in N.J. to Shut Down Marcellus Work in Pa.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey, Democrat from Hurley, N.Y., may not have a particularly firm grasp on the history of hydraulic fracturing – continuing to tell anyone who will listen (wrongly) that HF was previously regulated by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act, but now is not.
But anyone who thinks he doesn’t have a sophisticated understanding of how to use all levels of government to get things done (or, in this case, stop things from happening) – think again.
Mr. Hinchey, an original co-sponsor of the job-killing FRAC Act – which aims to strip individual energy-producing states of their ability to tightly and able regulate hydraulic fracturing – has elevated (or at least tried) his attack on responsible domestic shale gas development.
Under the headline “Obama admin rejects timeout for Marcellus drilling,” Greenwire’s Mike Soraghan reports this:
Brig. Gen. Peter “Duke” DeLuca, commander of the North Atlantic Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, last week declined a request from Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) to use the federal government’s vote on the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to seek a temporary ban on gas production in the Delaware watershed.
The Obama administration has decided against pressing for a temporary halt to Marcellus Shale drilling in Pennsylvania and New York, a key federal official said.
Hinchey wants drilling there to wait until the commission completes a “cumulative impact statement,” but DeLuca said that could delay drilling for years.
“Just to be clear here, Hinchey was trying to use a federal agency to direct the actions of a regional water board for the purposes of preventing the development of natural gas in a state where he doesn’t even live,” said Chris Tucker, spokesman for Energy in Depth, a group of independent drillers. “Next thing you know, he’ll be ordering the Army Corps to build levees around our well sites in Wyoming.”
Here’s what others – who have actual energy backgrounds and expertise – are saying about hydraulic fracturing’s long and clear record of environmental safety and effectiveness.
- IPAA’s Barry Russell: “Special Interests’ Misguided Policies”: “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, the industry 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. This has become such an important policy issue, that the industry has created a coalition – small and large companies, consumers, landowners – to address the very questions asked today by National Journal. You can visit the Energy in Depth coalition’s website at www.energyindepth.org. (National Journal, 9/20/10)
- Pa. Petroleum Geologist: “In praise of shale gas”: “The risk of polluting underground aquifers is vanishingly small. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection tightly regulates the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, the technique that’s made it possible in recent years to reach large deposits of shale gas, and hydraulic fracturing is done at a considerable distance from any underground water resources. Safeguards also are in place to protect water systems from discharging drilling wastes. (Post-Gazette, 9/22/10)
- Ph.D. in Geophysics with a focus in Petroleum Seismology: “Pa. doesn’t need federal agency’s help regulating shale gas development”: “Pennsylvania has returned to the national energy stage. The Marcellus Shale is filled with natural gas but only allows it to flow along cracks in the rock known as “fractures.” Hydraulic fracturing – sometimes called “fracking” – involves injecting fluid into these tight formations at very high pressures to create man-made fractures. Without directional drilling and fracking, the gas boom in Pennsylvania might never have started. The type of fluid used for fracking varies, but it is usually over 99 percent water and solids with the remainder being additives that promote flow of the fracking fluid through the rock. (Wilkes Barre Times-Leader, 9/19/10)
