[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING:
BANNING PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES
ON POSSIBILITIES
INSTEAD OF PROBABILITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
APRIL 23, 2015
----------
Serial No. 114-16
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING:
BANNING PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES
ON POSSIBILITIES
INSTEAD OF PROBABILITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 23, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-221 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PAUL TONKO, New York
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan MARK TAKANO, California
STEVE KNIGHT, California BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
C O N T E N T S
April 23, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Ms. Christi Craddick, Chairman, Railroad Commission of Texas
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. Donald Siegel, Chair of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Mr. Simon Lomax, Western Director, Energy in Depth
Oral Statement............................................... 76
Written Statement............................................ 78
Mr. Elgie Holstein, Senior Director for Strategic Planning,
Environmental Defense Fund
Oral Statement............................................... 83
Written Statement............................................ 85
Discussion....................................................... 98
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Christi Craddick, Chairman, Railroad Commission of Texas..... 126
Dr. Donald Siegel, Chair of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University.. 136
Mr. Simon Lomax, Western Director, Energy in Depth............... 165
Mr. Elgie Holstein, Senior Director for Strategic Planning,
Environmental Defense Fund..................................... 173
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 180
Documents submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 377
Document submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 412
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING:
BANNING PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES
ON POSSIBILITIES
INSTEAD OF PROBABILITIES
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing on the science behind hydraulic
fracturing. I'll recognize myself for an opening statement and
then the Ranking Member.
The combination of hydraulic fracturing and directional
drilling, called ``fracking,'' is arguably one of the most
significant technological advancements in the history of the
oil and gas industry. This technological breakthrough has
helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs, been the catalyst
for a resurging manufacturing sector, and has enabled our
nation to become more energy independent. But as with any type
of technological progress from oil and gas development, any
risk must be evaluated carefully by the use of verifiable
science.
Unfortunately, opponents of hydraulic fracturing make
claims based on the possibility and not the probability of
associated risk. The Environmental Protection Agency has used
this agenda-driven approach to wrongly assert a connection
between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination.
For example, in Parker County, Texas, the EPA issued an
``unprecedented order'' that halted natural gas development
only to have the Texas Railroad Commission investigate and find
the EPA was wrong. In Pavillion, Wyoming, the EPA released a
draft report that claimed hydraulic fracturing caused water
contamination. However, it was later discovered that the report
had several glaring weaknesses.
Among them, the report failed to take into account
naturally occurring natural gas, it was not peer-reviewed, it
involved poor sampling and lacked data transparency. The EPA
was forced to abandon its investigation. Then in Dimock,
Pennsylvania, the EPA reinitiated an investigation into
groundwater contamination after it had at first agreed there
was no contamination. Seven months later, the EPA indicated
that oil and gas development was not the cause of the
contamination. It appears that the decision to reinitiate the
investigation was based on political pressure from activists
who oppose hydraulic fracturing.
It is incredible, given their track record, that the EPA is
now working on another large study to suggest a causal
connection between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater
contamination. Their refusal to accept good science knows no
bounds, which is why we should be suspect of other findings by
the EPA. Their political agenda drives their science agenda.
Perhaps most troubling is that EPA's study of fracking does
not include a risk assessment in their analysis. This means the
study will be focused on possible problems with hydraulic
fracturing rather than what is likely or probable. The mere
possibility that something may occur will do little to help
regulators evaluate the overall process.
The science overwhelmingly shows that hydraulic fracturing
can be done in an environmentally safe manner. Even the
Administration agrees and has repeatedly said that potential
risks can be avoided through modern technologies based on sound
science. President Obama has stated that ``we should strengthen
our position as the top natural gas producer.'' And that the
natural gas boom, made possible by hydraulic fracturing, has
led to ``greater energy independence, and we need to encourage
that.''
In fact, even the current Administrator of the EPA said,
``There's nothing inherently dangerous in fracking that sound
engineering practices can't accomplish.'' Then why does the EPA
repeatedly and publicly begin with the premise that hydraulic
fracturing causes water contamination only to be forced to
retract their premise after the claims are subjected to
scientific scrutiny? Meanwhile, the allegations make headlines;
the retractions are footnotes.
The EPA's bias against fracking is the opposite of the
accepted scientific method. Hydraulic fracturing is a proven,
safe technology that has made America an energy leader. Yet
there are still those that believe that regardless of the
science, the process should be banned.
Activists have spread misinformation about the science in
an attempt to convince Americans that there is no way fracking
can be done safely. The Administration relies on questionable
studies and reports that are paid for, peer-reviewed by, and
disseminated by a network of environmentalists with an
ideological agenda.
Using scare tactics to impede the development of oil and
gas will cost our communities jobs, our states revenue, and
will force us to increase our dependence on foreign oil. Safe
domestic natural gas production has benefited the environment,
the economy, and the hardworking families who now enjoy reduced
energy costs.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
The combination of hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling,
called ``fracking,'' is arguably one of the most significant
technological advancements in the history of the oil and gas industry.
This technological breakthrough has helped create hundreds of
thousands of jobs, been the catalyst for a resurging manufacturing
sector, and has enabled our nation to become more energy independent.
But as with any type of technological progress from oil and gas
development, any risks must be evaluated carefully with the use of
verifiable science.
Unfortunately, opponents of hydraulic fracturing make claims based
on the possibility and not the probability of associated risks. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has used this agendadriven
approach to wrongly assert a connection between hydraulic fracturing
and ground water contamination.
For example, in Parker County, Texas, the EPA issued an
``unprecedented'' order that halted natural gas development only to
have the Texas Railroad Commission investigate and find the EPA was
wrong. In Pavillion, Wyoming, the EPA released a draft report that
claimed hydraulic fracturing caused water contamination. However, it
was later discovered that the report had several glaring weaknesses.
Among them, the report failed to take into account naturally
occurring natural gas, it was not peer reviewed, it involved poor
sampling and lacked data transparency. The EPA was forced to abandon
its investigation. Then in Dimock, Pennsylvania, the EPA reinitiated an
investigation into ground water contamination after it had at first
agreed there was no contamination. Seven months later, the EPA
indicated that oil and gas development was not the cause of the
contamination. It appears that the decision to reinitiate the
investigation was based on political pressure from activists who oppose
hydraulic fracturing.
It is incredible, given their track record, that the EPA is now
working on another large study to suggest a causal connection between
hydraulic fracturing and ground water contamination. Their refusal to
accept good science knows no bounds, which is why we should be suspect
of other findings by the EPA. Their political agenda drives their
science agenda.
Perhaps most troubling is that EPA's study of fracking does not
include a risk assessment in their analysis. This means the study will
be focused on possible problems with hydraulic fracturing rather than
what is likely or probable. The mere possibility that something may
occur will do little to help regulators evaluate the overall process.
The science overwhelmingly shows that hydraulic fracturing can be
done in an environmentally safe manner. Even the Administration agrees
and has repeatedly said that potential risks can be avoided through
modern technologies based on sound science.
President Obama has stated that ``we should strengthen our positon
as the top natural gas producer.'' And that the natural gas boom, made
possible by hydraulic fracturing, has led to "greater energy
independence, [and] we need to encourage that.''
In fact, even the current Administrator of the EPA said, ``There's
nothing inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering
practices can't accomplish.'' Then why does the EPA repeatedly and
publicly begin with the premise that hydraulic fracturing causes water
contamination only to be forced to retract their premise after the
claims are put to scientific scrutiny?
Meanwhile, the allegations make headlines; the retractions are
footnotes. The EPA's bias against fracking is the opposite of the
accepted scientific method. Hydraulic fracturing is a proven, safe
technology that has made America an energy leader. Yet there are still
those that believe that regardless of the science, the process should
be banned.
Activists have spread misinformation about the science in an
attempt to convince Americans that there is no way fracking can be done
safely. The Administration relies on questionable studies and reports
that are paid for, peer-reviewed by, and disseminated by a network of
environmentalists with an ideological agenda.
Using scare tactics to impede the development of oil and gas will
cost our communities jobs, our states revenue, and will force us to
increase our dependence on foreign oil. Safe domestic natural gas
production has benefited the environment, the economy and the
hardworking families who now enjoy reduced energy costs.
Chairman Smith. And that concludes my opening statement,
and the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Johnson, is recognized for her opening statement.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and let me thank our witnesses for being present. I am from
Texas and I served with your father, I believe, in the Texas
House. He was there when I got there and I think he's still
there and I got there in '73.
I am pleased that the oil and gas industry has done so well
and most especially during the Obama Administration's tenure.
However, I'm also a nurse by training and I am sensitive to the
need to protect public health and environment, even as we
develop new fossil fuels resources.
This hearing is advertised as being about the science of
fracking, but the majority's witnesses consist of state
economic regulation and development officials representative of
a firm that was set up to run public relations for the fracking
industry and a scientist who has been paid by one of the
largest fracking firms in the country. That does not sound like
a promising panel to honestly examine the scientific questions.
Looking at the majority's hearing materials and testimony,
it is clear that this is a hearing designed to give a platform
for the fracking industry to attack those who question the
safety and practices within the industry. In particular, there
is a focus on undermining local communities that are
considering or perhaps have adopted limits or bans on fracking.
More than 500 local communities, including some in my home
State of Texas, have raised concerns about the practice of
fracking and have considered or passed bans to restrict
fracking activities. These are our constituents who are dealing
with real issues, real environmental and public health
implications. We should not belittle or diminish their concerns
or simply dismiss them as unsophisticated. Instead, I'm going
to suggest that the answer to calming the fears of local
communities is not to be found in attacking their motives or
information, but through more transparency by the industry and
more effective regulation by states and the Federal Government.
People have concerns about the fracking industry because
they can see it is largely unchecked. For example, in the State
of Colorado with over 52,000 active fracking wells, the State
has only 40 inspectors. West Virginia has 56,000 active wells
and as of 2011 just 20 inspectors.
Pollution of drinking water, whether from fracking or
flawed construction of the well, are from surface waste from
the site moving into aquifers has occurred at least 248 times
between 2008 and 2014 in Pennsylvania. We actually do not know
how many incidences in total there have been because the State
did not start collecting statistics on incidences until 2014.
If we had more transparency, more accountability, and more
oversight, local communities would be able to make well-
informed choices. However, building an oversight hearing around
public relations campaigns to dismiss those concerns of local
communities not only does a disservice to members of this
committee, it also does nothing to increase the trust of the
fracking industry in those communities.
In closing, I would argue that it is not some hypocritical
smear campaign by the Federal Government, but rather repeated
attacks against EPA and campaigns of doubt waged by opaque
industry that have stoked mistrust along--among the American
people. This hearing is likely to have the unintended
consequence of further stoking mistrust among the American
people.
Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``sunlight is said to be
the best disinfectant.'' I can't agree more. It is time that
our local communities are provided with transparent information
from industry to better understand the environmental and public
health risk posed by hydraulic fracturing activities.
Mr. Chairman, I think the problem is not that local
communities are given bad information from activists; it is
that local communities cannot get accurate information about
the environmental and health impacts resulting from oil and
natural gas development using high-volume fracking techniques.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:]
Statement submitted by full Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
I am from Texas, and like you I am also pleased that the oil and
gas industry has done so well during the Obama Administration's tenure.
However, I am also a nurse by training and I am sensitive to the need
to protect the public health and the environment even as we develop new
fossil fuel resources.
This hearing is advertised as being about the science of fracking,
but the Majority's witnesses consist of a state economic regulation and
development official, a representative of a firm that was set up to run
public relations for the fracking industry, and a scientist who has
been paid by one of the largest fracking firms in the country. That
does not sound like a promising panel to honestly examine scientific
questions.
Looking at the Majority's hearing materials and testimony, it is
clear this is a hearing designed to give a platform for the fracking
industry to attack those who question the safety of practices within
that industry. In particular, there is a focus on undermining local
communities that are considering, or perhaps have adopted, limits or
bans on fracking.
More than 500 local communities, including some in my home state of
Texas, have raised concerns about the practice of fracking and have
considered, or passed, bans to restrict fracking activity. These are
our constituents, who are dealing with real issues, with real
environmental and public health implications. We should not belittle or
diminish their concerns--or simply dismiss them as unsophisticated.
Instead, I am going to suggest that the answer to calming the fears
of local communities is not to be found in attacking their motives or
information, but through more transparency by industry and more
effective regulation by states and the federal government.
People have concerns about the fracking industry because they can
see it is largely unchecked. For example, in the state of Colorado,
with over 52,000 active fracking wells, the state has only 40
inspectors. West Virginia has over 56,000 active wells and (as of 2011)
just 20 inspectors. Pollution of drinking water, whether from fracking,
or flawed construction of the well, or from surface waste from the site
moving into aquifers, has occurred at least 248 times between 2008 and
2014 in Pennsylvania--we actually do not know how many incidents in
total there have been because the state did not start collecting
statistics on incidents until 2014.
If we had more transparency, more accountability and more
oversight, local communities would be able to make well-informed
choices. However, building an oversight hearing around a public
relations campaign to dismiss the concerns of local communities not
only does a disservice to Members of this Committee, it also does
nothing to increase trust of the fracking industry in thosecommunities.
In closing, I would argue that it is not some ``hypocritical smear
campaign'' by the federal government, but rather repeated attacks
against EPA, and campaigns of doubt waged by an opaque industry, that
have stoked mistrust among the American people. This hearing is likely
to have the unintended consequence of further stoking mistrust among
the American people.
Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``Sunlight is said to be the best
of disinfectants.'' I couldn't agree more. It is time that our local
communities are provided with transparent information from industry to
better understand the environmental and public health risks posed by
hydraulic fracturing activities.
Mr. Chairman, I think the problem is not that local communities are
given bad information from activists, it is that local communities
cannot get accurate information about the environmental and health
impacts resulting from oil and natural gas development using high
volume fracking techniques.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Now, before I yield back, I want to
attach to my statement two studies--excuse me--the Malone and
another study and the NRDC issue paper on fracking spills. And
I ask unanimous consent to attach those.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
[The appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Let me introduce our witnesses today. And our first
witness, Ms. Christi Craddick, is Chairman of the Texas
Railroad Commission. Since Ms. Craddick began her role at the
Commission in 2012, she has pushed to maximize the
effectiveness and efficiency of an energy industry that is
helping to drive the State's economic success. Prior to her
tenure at the Texas Railroad Commission, Ms. Craddick had a
career as an attorney specializing in oil and gas, water, tax
issues, electric deregulation, and environmental policy. Ms.
Craddick earned both her bachelor's degree and her doctor of
jurisprudence from the University of Texas at Austin.
Our second witness is Dr. Donald Siegel, and he is the
Jessie Page Heroy Professor and Department Chair of the
Department of Earth Sciences at Syracuse University. Dr. Siegel
has worked at Syracuse University since 1982 and currently
teaches elementary- and graduate-level courses in Earth
science, groundwater movement, and the faith of contaminants in
groundwater.
Prior to joining Syracuse University, Dr. Siegel worked at
the U.S. Geological Survey in the Minnesota District. Among
many other accomplishments, Dr. Siegel has served as a member
on numerous panels of the National Academy of Science and is
Chair of the National Research Council Water Science and
Technology Board. Dr. Siegel received his bachelor's degree in
geology from the University of Rhode Island, his master's
degree in geology from Pennsylvania State University, and his
doctorate in hydrogeology from the University of Minnesota.
Our third witness, Mr. Simon Lomax, is the Western Director
of Energy In Depth, a research, education, and public outreach
program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Before working at Energy In Depth, Mr. Lomax spent 15 years
working in journalism as the Editorial Director of the ``Energy
Now'' TV show and Energy and Environmental Reporter at
Bloomberg News and a Senior Editor at Argus Media, Inc. Mr.
Lomax holds a bachelor's in journalism from the Queensland
University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.
Our final witness, Mr. Elgie Holstein, is the Senior
Director for Strategic Planning at the Environmental Defense
Fund. Prior to joining the Environmental Defense Fund, Mr.
Holstein was the Senior Advisor to the Obama Presidential
Campaign on energy and environment policy matters and co-
Director of the Department of Energy Presidential Transition
Team. Among many other roles, Mr. Holstein has also held a
position of Assistant Secretary of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and Chief of Staff of the U.S.
Department of Energy.
We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward
to your testimony. And we'll begin with Ms. Craddick.
TESTIMONY OF MS. CHRISTI CRADDICK,
CHAIRMAN, RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
Ms. Craddick. Good morning. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Johnson, and members of the committee, my name is Christi
Craddick, and as Chairman of the Railroad Commission of Texas,
I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony and
information at today's hearing.
This is an important issue with a direct impact on Texas
today, as well as other states throughout the United States,
affecting thousands of jobs across the country and our nation's
economy.
Since hydraulic fracturing has become a widely used
practice, it has been surrounded by misinformation, propagated
by groups more interested in prohibiting the technique than
understanding the complex science of safe and responsible
minerals extraction. Setting the hyperbole aside reveals a
simple truth: There are no confirmed instances of groundwater
contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing in Texas. With
proper oversight, hydraulic fracturing is safe.
The thriving energy sector in Texas is due in large part to
the diligence of the Railroad Commission, which is responsible
for ensuring the safety of oil and gas production statewide
through a rigorous process of permitting, monitoring, and
inspecting operations. For 90 years, the Commission has served
as the State's primary regulator of the oil and gas industry
and is recognized as a regulatory leader throughout the world.
Commission rules and actions, grounded in science and fact and
combined with almost a century of oil and gas regulatory
experience, allow us to protect the public and our natural
resources well.
The difference in Texas is found in the Commission's
mission statement: ``To serve Texas by our stewardship of
natural resources and the environment, our concern for personal
and community safety, and support of enhanced development and
economic vitality for the benefit of all Texans.'' Sensible,
business-minded regulation with a high standard for
environmental safety allows the oil and gas industry to
flourish.
Every aspect of oil and gas development is highly
regulated, as industry adheres to regulation at the local,
state, and Federal levels. While it is in everyone's best
interest the energy industry is successful, that is only the
case if it operates responsibly and in full compliance with our
laws, or the Commission will not hesitate to revoke their
ability to do business in Texas.
Included in the Railroad Commission's regulatory
responsibility is the well completion technique known as
hydraulic fracturing. For more than 60 years, hydraulic
fracturing has been used safely and successfully in over 1
million wells around the world, retrieving more than 7 billion
barrels of oil and 7--600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The technique involves the process of extracting oil and
gas reserves from shale rock layers deep within the Earth's
crust that were once unreachable through the use of
conventional drilling. This precise scientific process combined
with horizontal drilling allows for the injection of highly
pressurized hydraulic fracturing fluids into shale areas. This
creates new channels within the rock from which oil and gas are
extracted at higher rates.
With ever-evolving industry technology and increased
production comes a large regulatory workload. Although Texas
regulatory standards have been in place for almost 100 years,
the current energy growth has presented a real opportunity for
states to benefit from the economic value of the responsible
regulation of energy development.
In an effort to bolster our regulations during this time of
considerable growth, the Commission has worked with
stakeholders to ensure that rules reflect industry's best
practices. As groundwater protection remains a key objective to
the Commission, major rules have focused on this principal
charge.
A keystone to the Commission's regulatory success is 16
Administrative Code Section 3.13, or Statewide Rule 13. It lays
the groundwork for the safety of Texas water. Statewide Rule 13
evaluates well integrity, assesses casing, cementing, drilling,
well control, and completion requirements, codifying best
industry practices. Amended in 2013, the most stringent casing
rule in the country went into effect on January 1st of 2014.
In addition to Statewide Rule 13, before the Commission
issues a drilling permit, the agency's Groundwater Advisory
Unit will send an applicant a letter indicating the base of
usable-quality water, indicating the level at which an operator
must place a cement casing to protect water sources. Wellbore
construction and design is highly regulated and technically
robust. Groundwater is permanently protected by several layers
of steel casing and cement, as well as thousands of feet of
rock. As a result, well failure is extremely rare in Texas.
While economic gains are meaningless without the safety of
our communities and resources, hydraulic fracturing bans hurt
Texas and the energy sector as a whole. Outside interests are
taking the legitimate concerns of citizens and influencing them
in an attempt to end fossil fuel production. Many of the
concerns of environmental groups raised are factually incorrect
or unsubstantiated. Without clearly defined regulatory roles
for cities, oil and gas development and its ability to anchor
the Texas economy is in jeopardy.
In Texas, bans in industry are a present-day concern. The
Railroad Commission though is required by delegated authority
to continue issuing oil and gas permits. Over the years,
though, oil and gas energy companies have extracted oil and gas
deposits from deep underground. Their operations have often
approached city boundaries. In those instances, success is
found when the industry, the Commission, and local authorities
work together to implement sensible guidelines. This
collaboration will disappear in communities where hydraulic
fracturing is banned. Without the certainty of fair regulation,
businesses will be far less willing to risk their capital, and
as a result, those cities will lose jobs, tax revenue, and
business development.
The industry is the greatest economic contributor in Texas,
and a prime driver in the vitality of the U.S. economy. In a
world where misinformation and sensationalism too often drive
the public discourse, let's embrace the truth, adopt reasonable
approaches to the challenges we face, and share the prosperity
that follows.
Thank you for having me this morning. I'll be glad to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Craddick follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Chairman Craddick. And Dr.
Siegel.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DONALD SIEGEL,
CHAIR OF EARTH SCIENCES,
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Siegel. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much
for inviting me here.
I present testimony on whether hydraulic fracturing of
rocks for oil and gas production can, other than in the very
rare local situation, degraded the quality of groundwater found
in shallow aquifers. I offer this testimony entirely on my own
behalf.
Now, the controversy over fracking ranges from concerns
over climate disruption to worries about potential lifestyle
changes and economic inequities. The one issue commonly raised
is whether natural gas escaping from gas wells can contaminate
drinking water aquifers, a concern highlighted by two
scientific papers published by scientists from Duke University
in 2011 and 2012. In these papers, the researchers reported the
results of their sampling of 141 domestic water wells in
northeastern Pennsylvania and adjacent New York for methane and
other substances. They showed a graph indicating that higher
concentrations of dissolved the natural gas occurs in water
wells closer to gas wells, and they said their results
``suggest important environmental risks accompany shale gas
exploration worldwide.''
When I read these papers then, I felt that 141 samples were
too few to make such a sweeping conclusion, and I noticed that
a cluster of about a dozen water wells had been sampled near
Dimock, Pennsylvania, where two gas wells had notably failed
and had produced some natural gas contamination, if not
anything else.
Common sense tells me that more natural gas occurs in the
drinking water near known failed wells, as rare as they might
be, much as there has to be more smoke near known burning
buildings. In essence, the Duke sampling seems statistically
biased to me and I didn't think they could say much about the
entire population of water wells, let alone anything about
shale gas exploration worldwide from such a small data set and
that style of sampling.
Surely after these papers were published, Chesapeake Energy
Corporation asked me if I would be interested in assisting them
to do a basic science study on an enormous water quality data
set they had collected in Pennsylvania and adjacent states.
This data set had over 34,000 individual samples of groundwater
and it's the largest data set I've ever seen of its kind for
groundwater analysis, including when I worked on large regional
aquifers for the U.S. Geological Survey.
You know, people in science talk about what's a
representative sample when you want to figure out
contamination. The number of samples in Chesapeake's data
remarkably captures the true population in parts of
Pennsylvania, so I agreed to help them. And we published our
first paper from this project on March 12 of this year in
Environmental Science and Technology, a peer-reviewed journal.
Before I talk about our results, I want to address some issues
that the press has recently brought up.
Immediately after we published our paper, certain media
challenged whether my co-authors and I had properly divulged
our association and payment by Chesapeake Energy Corporation.
Please keep in mind during the peer-review process, neither our
papers' reviewers, the associate editor handling the paper, nor
the chief editor found fault with our disclosure, and they
accepted our paper on March 12 of this year.
Now, I've edited many journals myself and I understand
disclosure, but in response to media pressures, the journal
prudently, as I would have done, asked my colleagues and me to
expand our disclosure. We did so promptly, and on April 16 our
revised manuscript was re-accepted as complete by the journal.
Case closed.
Now, the media also challenged us on how Chesapeake's
consultants sampled the homeowners' waters for natural gas. The
consultants used a widely recommended method used by EPA and
various state agencies and myself and others for decades. So
there is really no issue on that.
What about our results? Well, we cannot repeat Duke's
results. We cannot repeat Duke's results, but instead of using
141 samples, we used 11,309 samples in an area within which
there were 661 gas wells. We found high and low concentrations
of natural gas occur close and far from oil and gas wells with
no discernible pattern. Dissolved methane does not inherently
increase the closer a home is to a gas well. We could easily
see this in a graph, but we used four robust statistical
methods just to confirm it.
Now, why couldn't we reproduce Duke's results? I think that
Duke researchers just had insufficient number of samples to
adequately reflect the actual situation, and that's what I
reported in the paper.
Now, please understand that I know that gas wells can still
fail, but the Pennsylvania experience shows these situations
happen rarely, much less than one percent of the time. And our
data support these type of low incident rates. But most of all,
I'd argue our study points to the necessity of not jumping to
conclusions about contamination of water by anything without
getting adequate numbers of samples or at least having a
sampling program designed to truly characterize the problem.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Siegel follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Siegel.
And, Mr. Lomax.
TESTIMONY OF MR. SIMON LOMAX,
WESTERN DIRECTOR, ENERGY IN DEPTH
Mr. Lomax. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson,
distinguished members of the committee, good morning, and thank
you for inviting me to testify. My name is Simon Lomax and I am
here today representing Energy In Depth, an education and
outreach program of the Independent Petroleum Association of
America.
The IPAA represents thousands of oil and natural gas
producers and service companies who develop 95 percent of the
Nation's oil and gas wells. Today, Energy In Depth is releasing
a white paper called ``A Look inside New York's Anti-Fracking
Echo Chamber.'' It deals with the unprecedented decision of New
York Governor Andrew Cuomo to effectively ban Marcellus shale
development in the Empire State through a ban on so-called
high-volume hydraulic fracturing, or fracking for short.
I say unprecedented because, according to the Wall Street
Journal, New York is the first state with significant shale gas
resources to ban fracking. Governor Cuomo's decision was
completely at odds with earlier findings from state and Federal
environmental regulators that hydraulic fracturing has been
used safely in the United States for decades. In fact, Governor
Cuomo's decision overturned two earlier findings from state
environmental regulators in New York itself in 2009 and 2011
that hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus shale could move
forward safely under stringent regulations.
The reaction to the New York ban has been telling. While
some fringe environmental groups are celebrating, others in the
environmental movement say this simply goes too far. For
example, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a major
ally of environmental groups, called Governor Cuomo's decision
a misguided policy that ``doesn't make any sense at all.''
President Obama's Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who served
on the board of a national environmental group before joining
the President's Cabinet, reacted by saying fracking bans are
``the wrong way to go.'' She added that supporters of such bans
``don't understand the science.''
Similarly, California Governor Jerry Brown, a celebrated
environmentalist, flatly refused to ban hydraulic fracturing
when the subject came up recently in an interview on Meet the
Press. And in Colorado where I live, a special task force
convened by Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper recently
rejected a New York-style fracking ban.
Against that backdrop, the question our white paper seeks
to answer is how did Governor Cuomo justify a decision that
falls so far outside the mainstream? To support the ban, the
Cuomo Administration produced a 184-page literature review of
recently published research papers. But as detailed in our
white paper, we discovered significant and undisclosed ties
between some of the research used to ban fracking in New York
and the political campaign to ban fracking in New York. For
example, one paper was written by fracking opponent who
actually used buckets lined with plastic bags to take air
samples near oil and gas wells.
You might think this kind of paper would get shot down in
the peer-review process, but the peer reviewers were also
fracking opponents. One of them was Sandra Steingraber, the
cofounder of New Yorkers against Fracking, the State's leading
anti-fracking campaign group. When asked by a reporter about
this, Steingraber insisted her peer review was ``absolutely
objective.'' Then, a few days after that interview, she gave a
speech at a post-ban celebration with anti-fracking activists
in Albany where she said ``it is so sweet now to come together
in one room to tell the story of our victory.''
But there's more. We found a network of environmentally
active foundations funding the groups that produced this
research paper, some of the media outlets that covered the
paper, and the campaign organizations that pressured the Cuomo
Administration into banning fracking. These financial ties
totaled $3.7 million at the research phase, $2.2 million at the
media phase, and more than $16 million at the campaign phase.
This wasn't an isolated case. We found at least five more
research papers cited by the Cuomo Administration where anti-
fracking foundations provide funding to the researchers,
funding to the media outlets that promoted the research, and
funding to the campaigns that seized upon the research to drum
up political opposition to shale development in New York.
The anti-fracking work of these foundations was led by the
Park Foundation based in Ithaca, New York, whose president has
openly admitted to funding anti-fracking research, media, and
political campaigning in an effort to oppose fracking ``from
every angle.'' In effect, these foundations built an echo
chamber to drown out the facts in the debate over hydraulic
fracturing and Marcellus shale development in New York.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lomax follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lomax.
And Mr. Holstein.
TESTIMONY OF MR. ELGIE HOLSTEIN,
SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
Mr. Holstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms.
Johnson, members of the committee, for this opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the issues associated with
unconventional oil and natural gas production.
The essential question before the Committee is whether it
is appropriate for state and local governments to exercise
their long-standing traditional authorities--excuse me--in
order to ensure that their citizens and communities are
reasonably protected from economic and environmental harm. We
believe the answer to that question is yes.
While Environmental Defense Fund has not been engaged
directly in the various debates over state and local hydraulic
fracturing bans and other restrictions, we believe that many of
the issues around which those debates revolve are legitimate
and do reflect scientifically supportable concerns.
Unconventional oil and natural gas development is a heavy
industrial activity, so it is understandable that states and
municipalities are seeking to exercise their traditional role
in protecting their communities, and I think that response is
entirely consistent with state and community application of
things like zoning, right-to-know laws, industrial safety
standards, et cetera.
Achieving a true balance of interests is critical. That
means ensuring that gas is developed responsibly through strong
public health, safety, and environmental protections. Striking
the right balance also means continuing to invest in the
deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy, even as
our nation moves to dramatically expand our domestic oil and
gas resources.
I'd like to touch on several of the key issues presented by
hydraulic fracturing. One is well integrity. It's true that
there has yet to be conclusive evidence that hydraulic
fracturing itself has caused drinking water contamination.
However, it is widely understood that poor well construction
and maintenance can create pathways for contamination of
groundwater resources by introduced and naturally occurring
chemicals.
Water management: Between one and 5 million gallons of
fracking fluids are typically used in a hydraulic fracturing
operation, and around 800 billion gallons of wastewater are
generated annually by onshore oil and gas operations in the
United States. Where that water comes from and how it is
managed during storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal
are issues of legitimate state and local concern.
Air quality: Because of intensive shale gas development,
the small town of Pinedale, Wyoming, has experienced smog
concentrations comparable to those of Los Angeles. Polluted air
from oil and gas operations is a growing concern across the
country. In addition, methane emissions from natural gas
operations are a potent source of greenhouse gas pollution.
Earthquakes: Reports of earthquakes occurring as a
consequence of hydraulic fracturing are now widespread,
including in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Ohio, and Kansas.
Whether those earthquakes are the result of high pressure frack
jobs or, much more commonly, high-volume wastewater disposal
wells, earthquake activity and shale regions can be deeply
alarming to members of the public.
In fact, just this week, the Oklahoma Geological Survey
released a statement concluding that it's very likely that most
of the recent earthquakes in the central part of the State--and
there have been hundreds of those earthquakes--were triggered
by the injection of produced water into disposal wells.
Infrastructure: The impact on roads, water systems,
schools, social services, land, and neighborhoods of intensive
oil and gas development is a leading concern of the many
communities across America that find themselves, often for the
first time, in the center of new energy development.
In States like Texas and Oklahoma, hundreds of cities have
adopted local rules that have enabled the orderly development
of oil and gas. Unfortunately, such measures are under attack
in many jurisdictions, including most recently in Texas where
the legislature is considering a bill that would sweep away
nearly all local authority. We think that would be an
unfortunate overreaction. Dismantling local regulatory
authority increase risks by creating regulatory gaps. It also
stops communities from imposing even the most reasonable rules
governing issues such as well setbacks from homes, schools,
churches, and parks. The result can be even more determined
citizen opposition to oil and gas operations.
In many states, new regulatory measures have not kept pace
with the intense rate of new oil and gas development, which of
course is made possible by hydraulic fracturing and other new
technologies. Local communities have become increasingly
restive about shale and oil and gas development within their
borders. And of course, as I note in my written testimony, many
communities and states have very little and in some cases no
experience with the oil and gas operations.
So while drilling bans may not be the solution in the long
run, they surely do reflect a need for governments at the
federal, state, and local level to take more aggressive action
to protect the environment and the economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts about
the basis for these public concerns.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holstein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Holstein, and I'll recognize
myself for questions. And let me address my first one to
Chairman Craddick.
And it is this: Chairman Craddick, you mentioned in your
statement that much of the criticism directed towards fracking
is unfounded and inaccurate. And I pointed out in my opening
statement that the Administration is now zero for three in
their very public accusations that somehow fracking
contaminates water. What is the harm caused by this kind of
misinformation and what can we do about it?
Ms. Craddick. Well, I think first and foremost--and I
appreciate the question--there's a lot of harm caused by
misinformation, and I think part of the job as a regulator is
to make sure that people understand we're out there inspecting
and doing our job and that we have rules, very vibrant rules in
place.
But when you look at--if you've got a fracking ban like
we've had proposed in Texas and we always want to make sure we
are respectful of the voters, but I think misinformation in the
City of Denton is part of what has caused the fracking ban vote
there. It's a taking-of-private-property rights, first and
foremost. So that's a real challenge. I think all of us respect
private property rights and citizens to be able to develop
their own mineral interests, first and foremost. But it's also
an economic problem for Texas.
So just to give you a little perspective of where Texas is,
last year--and these are numbers at the end of last year--we--
the oil and gas industry put into the Texas economy $15.7
billion into the Texas economy. That's both property tax, all
kinds of taxes, but also payments to those royalty and mineral
interest owners. The industry created, both the direct and
indirect, 2.2 million jobs in the State of Texas. And if we
decide to ban fracking and/or limit what we're going to do,
then I think that you'll see those jobs go away and not come
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you for that response.
And, Dr. Siegel, you mentioned the two studies, 2011 and
2012, that were cited by New York to justify their banning of
fracking. Your own study refuted their findings, and you
mentioned several times the bias involved in those studies and
in the coverage of those studies. What accounts for the bias?
What drives the bias? What's the motive and what can be done
about that?
Dr. Siegel. That's a good question. I can't----
Chairman Smith. Turn on your mike there. Okay.
Dr. Siegel. That's an excellent question, Mr. Chairman. You
know, I can't read into the minds of the researchers, you know,
at Duke of why they designed the study the way they did. But as
I said in my testimony, it struck me when I first saw the
paper, the first one in 2011, that the sampling appeared to be
done in a way to highlight places where a few fugitive gas well
problems had occurred in Pennsylvania, and some have occurred,
a few handful have occurred, and Dimock being one of them.
And so it struck me if their goal was to come up with an
assessment of in general systematically or systemically is
there a problem with gas wells and gas and domestic water, they
should have sampled differently.
Why in New York it got such impact I think it had to do
with the media coverage and actually Rob Jackson's promotion of
his paper. And so people picked up on that.
And how to prevent that, I really don't know. It's a big
issue of how science is perceived in the public and how to
present the best science there is in a way that the public can
understand it.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Siegel.
And, Mr. Lomax, you discovered, no surprise, this network
of foundations and activists who seem to engage in what we
might call and what you called advocacy science, which I don't
think is science at all. You might take a swing at how do we
counter this bias that you have discovered, why it is not
scientific, and what we can do about it.
Mr. Lomax. So I've mentioned in my testimony that I live in
Colorado. I live in Denver, which is a major----
Mr. Perlmutter. --Colorado.
Mr. Lomax. It's good to see you Congressman Perlmutter.
I have the great privilege of working alongside and
interacting with on a daily basis the men and women of the oil
and gas industry in Colorado who make the oil and gas industry
run--geologists, engineers, other technical experts--because
the oil and gas business is fundamentally a scientific
enterprise. Without the science of geology, you don't know
where to get the oil and gas. Without the science of
engineering, you don't know how to build a well to bring that
oil and gas to the surface so we can turn it into the energy
and consumer goods that support our way of life.
If there's one thing that I could convey from my
discussions with them is they just want a debate that's based
on facts.
Chairman Smith. Yeah.
Mr. Lomax. They just want a debate that's based on facts
because, as practitioners of science themselves, they know that
the facts conclude that the oil and gas industry, while not
being perfect, is most certainly safe.
And so I think that in terms of the undisclosed conflicts
and bias that you see sometimes in research and in some media
platforms that claim to be news outlets, that should be more
clearly disclosed.
I'm here at the committee today very clearly an advocate of
the oil and gas industry. That's not something I shy away from.
It's something I'm very proud of, and I chose to go to work in
oil and gas after a long and happy career as a reporter, as a
journalist. So people know where I'm coming from. People can
judge for themselves if I'm somebody worth listening to or not.
And one of the things that I think you may have noticed about
my testimony is that I was pointing people to things--pointing
people to authoritative sources from outside the industry,
particularly environmental regulators, so that you don't have
to take my word for it.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lomax.
The Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank all the witnesses for being here and simply
say that I am really seeking information. And I'm reading an
article here now that was published in the Wall Street Journal
this week--as a matter of fact, yesterday--and it talked about
the Oklahoma Geological Survey released a statement on Tuesday
saying it is now considered very likely that most of the
hundreds of earthquakes in the State's center in recent years
were triggered by the injection of produced water in disposal
wells. Southern Methodist University scientists, being a small
university in Dallas, Texas, indicated that 2013 northwest of
Fort Worth was also likely caused by the wastewater injection.
Now, I don't see anything wrong with the findings. What
concerns me is the denial of the findings. It would seem to me
that if these findings continue even with the University of
Texas research, are we addressing the findings? That is my
major concern. Just last weekend there was a major incident
just northwest I think of Fort Worth near Arlington where a
family's house collapsed and the water was--everyone was told
not to drink the water.
I've never found anything wrong with research, but my
feeling is that once we find findings, rather than denying it's
happening, can we start to address the issue? And what do we
get from denying citizens from being so fearful that they don't
want to see that near their homes?
I'd like to see--Mr. Lomax and Mr. Siegel, would you
address that for me? What is the--I'm trying to get to why
we're trying to deny this is going on. I just want the
information so we cannot just focus on it's not happening but
focusing on what can we do about it.
Dr. Siegel. Well, I mean I'm not denying--I never would
deny that the injection of water in injection wells at
extremely high rates wouldn't potentially cause earthquakes. I
mean, I've seen the studies the USGS has done and there are a
number--not many, but a few high-capacity injection wells in
which produced waters are being injected, and Ohio is another
place, and so forth. You know, the remedy to that is to inject
probably at much smaller rates. You have more wells injecting
at lower volumes. So, you know, I certainly wouldn't deny those
results. They come from very credible sources.
In terms of allaying the public's fears, I'm not sure how
to do that. But in the context of what you just said, I mean I
think it's fairly well known now that if you inject too much
fluid at a given location in certain geologic settings, you
could induce some earthquakes.
Now, having said that, from my reading of the journals of
the literature being produced on the earthquakes in Oklahoma
and elsewhere, most of them are the kind you can't feel but
there are some that you can feel.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. I have felt them.
Dr. Siegel. Right.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. I felt them the week before last in
Dallas.
Dr. Siegel. Right. So you can't deny that, right, and I
won't--would never deny that. But the solution to that,
although I'm not--this is not my area of great expertise, but
my understanding is that you have more injection wells spread
out over a larger area and you wouldn't have the kind of
problem, at least that's what--the sense I get from my
colleagues who study this kind of thing.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Mr. Lomax, do you have a comment?
Mr. Lomax. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for your question.
My issue is almost never with the actual research but the
way that those findings get politicized and misrepresented and
used by groups to say that hydraulic fracturing particularly--
even though we're talking about a completely separate process,
wastewater injection--when they use that as somehow to build a
case for banning fracking.
On the issue of induced seismicity, I always go back to
some testimony that was presented to the United States Senate a
couple of years ago by one of the Nation's leading
geophysicists, Stanford University Geophysicist Mark Zoback,
who studies this issue very closely, is an advisor to the Obama
Administration on this issue, and didn't say it's a nonissue,
just wanted to put it in perspective. So, for instance, he said
that there are more than 140,000 of these wastewater disposal
wells that are used by the oil and gas industry but also other
industries, too, and that those--the vast, vast majority of
those have been operating safely for decades.
So it's the context and it's the lack of a factual
discussion of the research that I take issue with and that I
hear about all the time from, you know, geologists and
engineers inside the oil and gas industry who just want the
debate focused on the facts rather than it being politicized
and sensationalized in an effort to run a media campaign to ban
fracking.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you.
Now, Ms. Craddick--you went over; I'm going over.
Chairman Smith. But you went over more than I did.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. One more question.
Chairman Smith. The Ranking Member will--without objection
will be recognized for another minute.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you.
We are aware that some of these incidents happen. My
concern is when people get concerned, it's real to them. Is the
answer to just keep them from expressing it by keeping them
from having local ordinances or do we make some type of
recommendation to move out of these urban areas where it's
happening to perhaps some other area? No matter what, we can
sit here and say, this frightens people.
I was standing in my office, which is almost downtown
Dallas, and the building shook a week ago. And I said I'm on
the sixth floor. That could not be a car. And then the news
came on and said it was an earthquake. We are not accustomed to
earthquakes in that area, but now we are. I mean they're
happening very frequently, Irving, Denton, Fort Worth, and all
in the mid-cities area.
Is it stupid to say people don't want that to happen near
their homes? Because for me to say--you're not going to pass an
ordinance in this State to stop this. Do we have a fund to pay
these people when their homes get torn up and their health is
affected?
Ms. Craddick. Well, thank you for the question. I think at
the Railroad Commission we obviously take seismicity very, very
seriously. We last year in April hired a seismologist the first
time ever in the history that we have ever done that because we
are, like everybody else, looking for answers. I'm not sure
it's always oil and gas-related when you look at Irving.
However, we are--have been out inspecting on a regular
basis. We have rules to be followed, and based on
recommendations from our seismologist last August, we adjusted
some rules for saltwater disposal wells and are following those
rules because we think--we're trying to be respectful and
responsive. However, we're still looking at the science and
data like everybody else, and we think our rules and our
information have to be based on good science and good
information.
And so--but we also at the same time as a Commission have
been up and down town hall meetings in Irving and Azle, been
responsive to Denton. And so we want to be involved with the
communities so they understand what we do and that we have very
stringent rules.
When you mentioned Arlington, last week with a potential
well that had some problems, we were on scene once we got the
call within an hour and were on scene for 24 hours straight as
an agency and are continuing to follow up with that well to
make sure our rules are being followed. So we take being a
regulator and an inspector--and if a rule is not followed, then
we have a stringent enforcement process as well.
So I think part of our challenge is to communicate those--
that information to local communities and local residences, and
we are as we speak trying to up our communication efforts and
we do work in--with cities and we want to continue to do that
as well.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. One more question and I'm done.
When people's homes collapse and when they have that kind
of incident, what responsibility do the companies that are
doing the drilling have?
Ms. Craddick. It obviously--if that--if it's proven that--
they have the right to file a lawsuit. We also--obviously if a
well has a problem and a rule has been broken, then we also do
enforcement penalties at our agency as well. So they have the
ability to file a lawsuit if that's the appropriate remedy for
them.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just state very emphatically that I don't know
anyone on our side of the aisle that doesn't believe that that
states and local communities have a right to make
determinations as to what will be permitted to operate within
their own borders. We in fact pride ourselves in believing in
local controls, et cetera. Let me--however, with that said, I'd
like to ask Mr. Holstein, you mentioned hundreds of
earthquakes. You know, when people talk about earthquakes, we--
those of us in California, we know what earthquakes are, and
it's a very frightening thing to hear about hundreds of
earthquakes. Just--what was the dollar damage done by all these
earthquakes in Oklahoma?
Mr. Holstein. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You don't know.
Mr. Holstein. No.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. You mentioned hundreds of
earthquakes; to us that's frightening. I think that that--my
guess is--anyone else on the panel have any idea what the
dollar damage was done or is this just, that's an earthquake?
There's some movement there? Do we know what the dollar damage?
I would ask the panel to get back to me with that information
because my guess is is that it's not very much. My guess is is
that it's like a big truck driving by and that shake is called
an earthquake. Do you consider--Mr. Holstein, does your
organization consider any seismic activity as an earthquake?
Mr. Holstein. Congressman, let me emphasize that, as
Chairman Craddick noted, many of the states that have in place
experienced regulators are scurrying to answer some of the
questions you're raising.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Um-hum.
Mr. Holstein. But their first order of business I think as
regulators of the industry is to discover just scientifically
what is the connection between the earthquakes and any
possible----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, how about answering----
Mr. Holstein. --activity.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --that question? Does your organization
consider any seismic activity as an earthquake?
Mr. Holstein. No.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. They don't. So what is your
definition of an earthquake that gives us hundreds of
earthquakes in Oklahoma?
Mr. Holstein. Congressman, we--in my testimony the cite of
a--the references I made to the earthquakes came from the
report that the Oklahoma Geological Survey has issued in the
last few days.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And they----
Mr. Holstein. So we didn't--let me just say we did not----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah.
Mr. Holstein. --do any independent investigation.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Holstein. Secondly, I want to endorse your suggestion
that we gather information about the cost of whatever
earthquakes may----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, certainly, because----
Mr. Holstein. --have occurred because I think the insurance
industry is probably a good source for that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Let me note that I am a former
journalist as well. I remember a story that I covered years ago
when there was a--we'd had an offshore oil well disaster or--it
doesn't exist anymore. The water is back to its normal state in
California after that. I think it was 1969 there was a big oil
spill out there. And, anyway, the oil companies had decided
they were going to pay for major research into the danger of
offshore oil wells. And I was called in as a reporter to cover
one of these hearings that they were having, and you had these
guys with Ph.D.'s and they really--talk about professionals
that were hired on to try to give the public some answers about
the actual dangers of offshore oil drilling.
Well, when I got to this hearing, there was a young lady
outside with a rubber duck covered with oil screaming
``murderers, murderers'' as they went by. And that young lady
with the rubber duck got all the press coverage that day. She
was actually put on par. And I asked her as we left, I said,
well, are you a student here locally? Well, she said, no, I'm
just hitchhiking through town. And I said, well, how did you
get over here? She said, well, this guy who picked me up said
that he would put me up if I would hold up this rubber duck and
scream ``murderer'' at these people, and I don't like these oil
companies anyway.
You know, we've got to get serious about these issues,
environmental issues, and there's a lot of people who are
holding up a rubber duck with oil dripping from it screaming
``murderer'' and then what we end up with is less safe energy.
What we end up with and what we end up in California with was--
and other places where they banned now offshore oil drilling
for so long, and we ended up with oil being delivered by
tanker, which is probably 10 times more dangerous than anything
coming from an offshore oil well. We have people who have
opposed the pipeline that we--the Keystone pipeline for
environmental reasons and that we end up with even more danger
transporting that same oil and gas by trains.
So, look, I think everybody--and nobody in their--who is in
their right mind is going to make--want there to be more danger
environmentally, things that can hurt--we all have children. We
want our children to inherit a planet that's cleaner. But what
we have is people who are acting irrationally and I believe
it's all based on some messianic theory that we've got to
eliminate oil and gas because we are changing the climate of
the planet; thus anything we do is justified. And I think we
need to be very careful with our facts, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for this hearing.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to our witnesses for being here today for this important
discussion.
I wanted to take just a minute to recognize Camille, who is
here with Girls Inc. as my daughter for the day. She's from
Oregon and she's in the fourth grade and she has a class in
science and a class in technology at her school. So when we
talk about science literacy, I want to tell you there's hope
for the next generation.
So back home in Oregon, my constituents reside along or
near an active fault, the Cascadia Subduction Zone, so for this
reason Oregonians are very concerned about seismic issues, and
as they should be. Currently, I know the Oregon Legislature is
studying hydraulic fracturing. We have none in our State at
present. And, as Mr. Holstein testified both in his oral
testimony and his written testimony, he was talking about the
Oklahoma geological survey. I would like to--if--has this
already been entered, the Geological Survey? I would like to
ask that this be made a part of the record today, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Bonamici. The statement dated April 21, 2015, where
they're talking about how the seismicity rate has increased and
that it is--and I'm just going to read this so I get it right--
``very likely that the majority of recent earthquakes,
particularly those in central and north-central Oklahoma, are
triggered by the injection of produced water in disposal
wells.''
So I know that the water being injected in Oklahoma's deep
wells comes from two main sources, the wastewater that
originated from the water that was used to frack the wells and
produced water that comes up along with the oil and gas, so we
do have that now in the record and I hope everyone will take a
look at it.
Mr. Holstein, you talked about hydraulic fracturing. You
mentioned heavy industrial activity. And my colleagues are
talking about the right of states to properly regulate that
type of activity. And I know we have a colleague here from New
York. There has been a lot of conversation about what they've
done in New York, and I know Vermont has also imposed a ban on
hydraulic fracturing.
I want to ask you, Mr. Holstein, in addition to the seismic
issues which were raised with regard to Oklahoma that my
constituents are especially concerned about, what other
environmental concerns are associated with the disposal of
fracturing--excuse me, fracking wastewater and produced water?
And I also wanted you to just address a little bit more the
use of water. You say--you mentioned that in your testimony,
and I know that Texas alone has used more than 44 billion
gallons of water in fracking activities. I don't have the time
frame on that but could you talk a little bit about just the
amount of water? I know in parts of Oregon we're very concerned
about drought, California, and we look across a lot of the
country that's facing drought. Do you have a sense of the
volume of water that's used?
Mr. Holstein. Yes, certainly, Congresswoman. And I think
you're right to put your finger on the issue that so many
communities are worried about and states, particularly those
states that are suffering through terrible droughts right now,
which is that these unconventional oil and gas drilling
operations frequently require very large amounts of water, 1 to
5 million gallons per well, so that's dozens if not sometimes
hundreds of trucks rumbling up and down local roads. Okay.
That's one of the reasons why we argue that this is a heavy
industrial activity.
But the broader context in which you're putting the water
issue is exactly right. It's the availability of water, it's
the challenge of treating water, it's the challenge of
injecting water, and the issues which you have just discussed
with respect to earthquakes and of course protection of water
supplies, and all of these issues kind of revolve around the
fact that there are enormous quantities of water.
How much? In my testimony I indicate that there's
approximately 800 billion gallons of water that must be managed
or disposed of in the course of a year's worth of
unconventional oil and gas development.
Ms. Bonamici. And I don't want to interrupt you, Mr.
Holstein, but I would like you to address in the remaining time
the studies looking at the release of methane during
hydraulic----
Mr. Holstein. Certainly.
Ms. Bonamici. --fracturing, please, and why that's
significant.
Mr. Holstein. Yes. We have done a lot of work in that area
jointly with industry, as well as academic partners and others
in peer-reviewed studies that have--that are taking a look at
the methane issue across the entire natural gas supply chain.
And as you know, natural gas is 97 percent or so methane, so
emissions from anywhere in the supply chain are harmful to the
climate but they also,--bring--you know, come along with
volatile organic compounds that are a hazard.
To answer your question directly, the release of methane
from unconventional oil and gas wells is a problem but it's a
solvable problem provided that operators use techniques that
are available to them and equipment that is available to them,
because if you look at the whole supply chain of where natural
gas or methane leaks from, what you find is that as much as 40
percent of those methane emissions will come from the
production segment. We're working, as I said, with these
partners to get a better handle on exactly that figure.
But I think the important point that has come up through
these scientifically peer-reviewed studies is that the design
of the wells and the techniques used by the operators can make
a huge difference in the amount of methane that escapes, and so
this is a concern for local communities, as I said, because of
local air pollution, and for the Nation as a whole because of
its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
I'd finally say that methane is a nasty climate actor. It's
84 times as powerful as carbon dioxide in the first 20 years or
so after it's released. And the significance of that point--and
I believe attached to my testimony and in the record you'll
find a scientific article about this problem. But the
significance of that is that it creates a near-term problem
with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, in other words,
damage to the climate, and that together with CO2
it's kind of a one-two punch at the climate.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. I see my time is
expired. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I have a lot of concern about fracking
and seismic testing, and we get so much diverse information
disseminated. You know, today we have three people saying
positive things and one person saying negative things, and it's
hard to tell, you know, who all is telling the truth and who
might not be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
And, Mr. Holstein, in your written testimony you made
things a little bit different than your oral testimony, and I
think I heard you say in your oral testimony that, true, there
is no evidence fracking causes contamination or maybe
fracking--would you repeat that for me, please?
Mr. Holstein. Yes, sir. And it's--hopefully I said the same
thing in my oral summary as I did in the written, but if I
didn't, I welcome the opportunity to repeat it here. ``There is
yet to be conclusive evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself
has caused drinking water contamination. However, it is widely
understood that poor well construction and maintenance can
create pathways for contamination''----
Mr. Posey. Okay. That----
Mr. Holstein. --``of groundwater.''
Mr. Posey. That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you.
You know, I heard people say the same thing about the
Alamo. You know, it's true that the Alamo does not itself cause
any contamination, but all those people that go to visit it,
they probably travel there by car or something and they
probably caused some kind of pollution. Somebody else said the
same thing about the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl itself doesn't
cause any pollution, but people that go to see the Super Bowl
turn on television to watch the Super Bowl, that consumes
energy.
People said the same thing about the Statue of Liberty. The
Statue of Liberty itself doesn't cause pollution, the people
that take a boat to it, the boat causes pollution taking them
there and the energy for the boat has to be produced. Somebody
said the same thing about the White House. The White House
itself does not cause any environmental damage but people who
go to see the White House have to travel there and we know that
virtually just about every product that we enjoy consumes some
type of energy in the making of it.
How do those examples differ from the point you're making?
Mr. Holstein. Congressman, I think it's important for me to
point out that Environmental Defense Fund has not been
reflexively opposed to unconventional oil and gas development
or the widespread development of these new resources that
previously were economically unavailable to America.
So I'd begin with that point and simply summarize the
thrust of my testimony by saying that it is too narrow of focus
simply to look at one dimension of hydraulic fracturing. That's
why my testimony addresses the many issues that come along with
unconventional drilling, but at the same time, it points out in
considerable detail the actions that have been taken in states
like Texas, in states like Colorado, in states like
Pennsylvania and Wyoming to try to address these concerns.
And one of the things I believe Chairman Craddick has said
that we so strongly support--in fact, I was thinking about it
as Congressman Rohrabacher was speaking with respect to
offshore drilling--and that is that one of the essential
challenges for regulators is to simply keep up with the
enormous amount of innovation that's going on in the oil and
gas industry. And I make no complaint about that innovation. I
simply noted that it is a highly complex and heavy industrial
activity and regulators need to be on their toes.
So let me conclude my response to you by saying that if you
can imagine the many communities and states where suddenly oil
and gas development is occurring where no one alive has ever
seen it before, has ever experienced it before, has ever worked
in the industry before, you can imagine the challenges to
elected officials at the state and local levels in trying to
devise appropriate regulatory programs and oversight.
And that is why we have such differences from state to
state with states like Texas having 100 years or more of
aggressive and increasingly complex regulation of the industry
but other states that are just starting out. And similarly, we
have a tremendous difference in the reactions that you see
between--the reactions you see politically to some of the local
fights over banning. Very briefly----
Mr. Posey. Yeah, I see my time is going to be up. I want to
thank you. I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing
today.
My particular interest is in offshore drilling that you
mentioned, and it's through hearings like this that the
Chairman was kind enough to have that we share those ideas and
we learn from different states and learn different techniques
and do more fact-finding on these issues that maybe aren't 100
percent clear.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the time and I
yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
The only member of the Science Committee from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank my friend from Florida because what he's brought up, you
know, he's given examples, the White House, the Super Bowl, and
the whatevers. I think he and I both serve on the banking
committee, the Financial Services Committee, and so one of the
places where we may see an intersection at some point is with
insurance, you know, property and casualty insurance if in fact
there are dangers that some people have suggested. So we will
see this come up in our other committee I'd say to my friend
from Florida.
Now, Colorado, obviously we've had a lot of discussion
about fracking and about its place in the politic--in the body
politic and legal community and the regulatory area. And so
I've been dealing with this subject for ten years now I would
say as a policymaker. And for me the fact that we have moved
ourselves towards energy independence as a policy and as a
successful goal from the innovation of horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracking is good, but--and I think Ms. Craddick, you
said it well--we have to take reasonable precautions, though,
with something that has helped us achieve another goal, and
we've got to--as policymakers, we have to balance the dangers
that potentially come from an industrial operation, as Mr.
Holstein described it.
And the fact that some things are going on underground we
may or may not be able to see, some things are happening at the
surface where there's a collision of an industrial operation
and the school next door and whether you need a curb cut for
the trucks and what's going on in the air. Is there an escape
of methane or some other emission into the air? And Mr. Lomax
knows we've been having that discussion in Colorado on a
pretty, you know, heated basis, whether it should be local
government, the state governments, or the Federal Government in
charge of all of this.
Colorado is similar to Texas. It's the state government
basically has the final say, our Colorado Oil and Gas
Commission, and that's generally where I've been. But we cannot
ignore the potential for dangers. We as policymakers have to
recognize dangers, and I'm looking at Oklahoma. There was an
article yesterday where the Oklahoma Geological Survey said
we're worried about seismic problems. So, you know, they said--
and they attribute it to the deep wastewater injection wells,
and in Colorado we've had, you know, some seismic activity that
ordinarily is not something we have in Colorado. You know, we
want that to be only in Oregon and people come to Colorado
because they're worried about Oregon, you know?
Ms. Bonamici. Thanks.
Mr. Perlmutter. Sorry.
So I would say--I'd like to ask a question of Mr. Holstein.
Good to see you.
So take a look in what you do at EDF, what you did formerly
within the Administration. Am I incorrect in trying to divide
it up into three sections, what goes on underground, what goes
on on the surface, and what goes on in the air?
Mr. Holstein. Fair enough.
Mr. Perlmutter. So what I've come to the conclusion is the
surface part really is a local matter. It's zoning and curb
cuts and truck traffic. Does that make sense to you?
Mr. Holstein. I think my testimony strongly suggests a
similar line of thinking. I hadn't divided it up quite the same
way that it makes sense, yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. I'd ask Mr. Siegel, and my--would you--I
mean how do you look at how we divide sort of the regulatory
components of all of this?
Dr. Siegel. Well, it's hard for me to really reply to that
because I'm not a regulator, okay, and I've really pretty much
restricted my views to what I know and feel pretty comfortable
with, which is water.
Mr. Perlmutter. So you're a scientist and you're dealing
with water and what's going on underground, right?
Dr. Siegel. That's correct, and on the surface at times,
yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. And on the surface, okay.
Dr. Siegel. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. So from your experience and from your
study, though, the pollution or the contamination you've seen
really has been with poor casing, some poor practices with
respect to the well?
Dr. Siegel. Well, not quite. I mean in my experience, which
is largely restricted to the Appalachia Basin of course since
I'm from New York, the kinds of problems that the Pennsylvania
experience tells us happens are there occasional surface spills
certainly in the past before the industry took notice, and now
that amount of spillage has really decreased.
And as far as the casings, you know, a few instances, a few
handful of instances----
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, isn't that--would that be the problem
in Dimock?
Dr. Siegel. Dimock was a casing issue or--well, there's
some question about that, whether when they drilled they went--
there's some issues of drilling. But it could also have been
casing as well. And that was natural gas from somewhere below
coming into people's homes.
As far as the other fluids associated with the industry,
it's mostly surface issues that are the problem, and those are
readily taken care of in most cases. I mean we don't have open
pits, for example, in Appalachia anymore. And in terms of the
flow backwater, the produced water, in Appalachia Basin, it's
my understanding that most of the flow back is reused to drill
new wells. And so the quantity of flow back and produced water
has gotten really small. They actually have to take care of--
ship it to Ohio or something for deep well injection, but
because the industry has to develop ways to do this.
In Pennsylvania there was a remarkable situation where one
of the companies--and I forget which one--suggested--they
developed a way to use acid mine drainage coming out of coal
mines as a fraction water additive instead of using freshwater,
but there was a state regulation for some reason saying you
can't get economic advantage out of using a waste product or
something so they never actually did it. But the point is that
the chemical engineers are at work to try to solve the issue so
that maybe in the future we don't have to use freshwater but
bad water to do the actual fracking.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
And, Mr. Lomax, my time is expired. I did want to ask the
Coloradan a question but my time has expired.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the gentleman is
recognized for an additional minute.
Mr. Perlmutter. Oh, all right.
So, you know what, I'm going to--I'm done. I'll let--I'll
talk to Mr. Lomax offline.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Lomax. Congressman, I would like to, if I could, add a
little context to the local and state issues about regulation--
--
Mr. Perlmutter. Sure.
Mr. Lomax. --in Colorado. I think what you've seen in
Colorado is that on the whole, you know, in the majority of
cases, you see the oil and gas industry working constructively
with both state and local governments in order to--and even
supporting local regulations in order to make sure that the
development is done responsibly and is done with the support of
the community. There have been, as you know, some cases where
there have been local bans enacted and there has been very sort
of broad regulatory and bipartisan opposition to local bans.
But in terms of local regulation, there is a lot of really sort
of constructive work going on between the state, between the
industry, and between local governments.
Now, that kind of stuff doesn't generate a lot of headlines
because there isn't a lot of conflict associated with it. But
during this whole oil and gas task force that the Governor set
up last year, you had the Colorado Municipal League and you had
the Colorado Association of Counties say we can work through
these issues using the existing regulatory framework rather
than turning--rather than coming up with statewide policies
that are basically being proposed by national ban fracking
groups.
Chairman Smith. Thank you----
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Holstein has been a--he wanted to say
something so----
Mr. Holstein. Thank you because I just am going to
crystallize an important point that Mr. Lomax is making here.
We believe that the set of rules that the State of Colorado has
put into effect in the last year are among the most progressive
and comprehensive in the Nation in terms of the range of issues
they develop. And we were delighted to partner with the three
largest oil and gas developers in the State and coming together
to develop the consensus that led to that comprehensive new set
of rules.
But the driver for that conversation, what brought everyone
to the table, was the fact that Colorado communities one by one
were adopting or considering bans, putting them on the ballot,
and there were indeed headlines across the state about whether
or not oil and gas development, particularly involving
unconventional development, including hydraulic fracturing,
would be permitted in the state.
So I simply point out that this is the danger of ignoring
the local concerns that can sometimes lead to these bans. You
need to bring people together and you need to take aggressive
action to address the issues.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. And I'm going to be drummed
out--off of this committee if I take any more time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
The gentleman from Ohio, is recognized, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I live in a very rich--shale-rich region of eastern and
southeastern Ohio, and hydraulic fracturing has been a process
that has had profound economic--positive economic implications
to the people that live in Appalachia, Ohio. So I'm very
concerned about some of the issues that we're talking about
here today.
And, Chairman Craddick, there's been a lot of discussion
about earthquakes here this morning. Is there some confusion
that the earthquakes are being caused by hydraulic fracturing
when it's really the deep well injection of the waste? Would
you take a minute and comment on that?
Ms. Craddick. First and foremost, thank you for the
question and I will say your governor and some of your
legislators and regulators have been to the Railroad Commission
so we can explain what we're doing. So hopefully we continue to
give you good advice as you are putting a vibrant oil and gas
community together up there as well.
You know, we obviously all take seismicity very seriously,
and the information available today is that hydraulic
fracturing is not causing earthquakes. That's the information
available in Texas today. We are still researching and looking
at the available science and we just had an SMU study, out on
Monday night, Tuesday this week that our seismologist is going
through and working with them. We hope they present this study
to us in the near future so we can ask our appropriate
questions as both regulators--I know the legislature is in
session right now in Texas. They want to ask questions as well.
So we're still looking at deep water injection wells and
whether that is the potential challenge in Texas.
So the answer is I don't think anybody absolutely knows.
What I do think some of these studies potentially do is rule
out potential problems that could be caused by earthquakes.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. But let me clarify just for the
record, you're saying there's no evidence yet at this point
that would indicate that hydraulic fracturing is causing
earthquakes?
Ms. Craddick. That's the information we have available,
yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Craddick. And what I think some of these studies do do
is rule out issues but I'm not sure they can ever tell you
specifically what is specifically causing it, too.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Got it. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Siegel, many advocacy groups have claimed that the
methane found in drinking water of various homes was caused by
hydraulic fracturing. Now, if methane is naturally occurring,
how can you tell if it's naturally occurring or as a result of
oil and gas development?
Dr. Siegel. Well, I've always thought it was fairly simple.
If you have fugitive gas from a gas well, my understanding, if
it gets out and gets into a domestic water supply, what you'll
find is methane Alka-Seltzer being produced where it was not
there before.
Now, there are some places in Pennsylvania and in New York
where we have naturally methane Alka-Seltzer occasionally
coming out of some drinking water wells where there's no
drilling at all, and this is a unique geologic situation. But
it's--you don't--the State of Pennsylvania doesn't to my
knowledge identify fugitive gas by analyzing and seeing that
dissolved concentrations that you can't see get higher. I mean
basically homeowners say my well is bubbling gas and hasn't
bubbled before and there's a gas well nearby. So there are very
few cases I know there have been fugitive gas, and most of
which have been easily taking care of by re-cementing.
It's very apparent, all right, and so that's what concerned
me about the other--those previous studies, that they--looking
at dissolved methane, the stuff you can't see, and saying that
increases in these which vary enormously over time naturally
are somehow related to oil and gas, and that's what we found
was the case.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Sure. One follow-on question, you
know, although it makes for good cinema and anti-fracking
advocacy, is natural gas in drinking water a new phenomenon?
Dr. Siegel. Well, not to my knowledge. The very first time
I came to Syracuse in 1981, the first call I got was from a
citizen who heard there was a hydrologist there and it had to
do with natural gas in their water well. It was near Saratoga,
New York, where I grew up, and, you know, I asked a few
questions, and that particular natural gas came from a wetland
setting.
The U.S. Geological Survey in New York has--did a study on
natural gas and found every well had some natural gas. At
Syracuse, some funded by National Science Foundation to look at
natural gas in Southern Tier, New York, and pretty much every
place we've looked for it or looked there's been natural gas,
and certainly in Pennsylvania the same way.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay. Well, thank you, Dr. Siegel.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be respectful of my colleagues'
time and our witnesses' time and yield back within my
prescribed time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
And the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to thank
all the witnesses, too, for being here with us today.
Dr. Siegel, you expressed some concern about the Duke
professor studies and the bias in their sample collection, the
146, two of them--or some of them near two of the wells that
had failed.
Dr. Siegel. Um-hum.
Mr. Beyer. And yet when you gathered your 12,000 or
whatever you were working on, they were gathered by employees
of the Chesapeake, a natural gas explorer. Why is that inherent
bias not much greater than independent researchers working for
a university?
Dr. Siegel. Well, I think you mischaracterized what
happened with the Chesapeake. Chesapeake Gas, to my knowledge--
what I was told it--is they hired national consultants who
sampled for them and nationally recognized certified labs by
EPA and so forth to do the analyses. So Chesapeake didn't
sample themselves. They hired independent contractors who are
hired all over the country in environmental work to do the
sampling. And so I don't see that those samples could have been
compromised or would have been compromised by the fact that the
Chesapeake hired independent consultants to do the sampling,
much like, you know, I hired a laboratory to do analyses for
me.
Mr. Beyer. Doctor, you also expressed, you know, some
concern about I guess maybe blogs or others that were critical
of the failure to disclose your connection to Chesapeake in the
original peer review. I know you corrected it last week, but
the original said the authors declared no competing financial
interest even though the samples were paid for to be collected
by Chesapeake, you were funded by Chesapeake, and one of the
co-authors was an employee of Chesapeake. Can you explain this
oversight? Now corrected.
Dr. Siegel. Well, you know, I don't think it was an
oversight in the sense that the editors and everyone else in
the journal fully understood by the bylines under our names
that it would be obvious that we were being paid by Chesapeake.
Chesapeake or any of these large corporations is not going to
just hand over 34,000 analyses and say just do with them what
you want. It was a collaborative agreement.
And so my colleagues across the country, when they started
seeing these blogs about me, you know, they said, well, of
course you must have been paid by Chesapeake.
But I guess it's an oversight in the context that people
brought it up and so we took care of it. And as editor, you
know, I--as I said, I've edited, I don't know, five, six
journals in my career and I've seen lots of cases like this.
So, yeah, I mean it's a corporate connection.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. All right. Thanks very much.
Dr. Siegel. Yeah.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Lomax, you again expressed great concern
about so-called advocacy science. And, you know, so much of
this is one side not trusting the science of the other. Why is
it advocacy science when citizens worry about what's happening
in their community to their health possibly but it's not
advocacy science when the oil and gas industry hires scientists
and journalists and others to represent their perspective?
Mr. Lomax. I'm sorry, so the question is----
Mr. Beyer. What makes Mr. Holstein's science advocacy
science and yours not?
Mr. Lomax. Well, let me start by saying that, you know,
my--the white paper that we released today on the New York
fracking ban is primarily about a failure to disclose all the
interests that are being brought to the table and the funding
thereof. And so, you know, I think that as a representative of
the oil and gas industry and as an advocate for the oil and gas
industry, you know where I'm coming from. And what we found
when we looked at some of these research papers, particularly
the research paper that was both written and peer-reviewed by
opponents of the industry, that opposition to the industry
wasn't disclosed so that people weren't able to judge for
themselves whether that information was trustworthy or not.
So it was an issue of disclosure rather than--it's not a
question of whether or not people can advocate for a political
viewpoint that they believe in. Of course they can. But if
they're going to try to represent themselves as then, you know,
independent researchers when they're actually running campaigns
to try to ban hydraulic fracturing in New York, that's
something at the very least needs to be disclosed. And you
don't have to take my word for it. There are plenty of
scientific codes of conduct that say these sorts of conflicts
at the very least need to be disclosed.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Craddick, how does geology impact the process of
fracking, the composition of the formations that you're
fracking?
Ms. Craddick. Obviously that's one of the things we, one,
rely on operators to look at; but if there is a fault and that
fault is a known fault, then we make sure that that--that we're
not allowing drilling to occur in that fault, first and
foremost. We take that into account, as do companies. That's
part of their risk assessment as well.
Mr. Palmer. All right. In that regard isn't it true that
the geology of Texas, the history of it is is that there has
been more than 100 earthquakes large enough to be felt over the
recent past? How many of those--the ones in the 1800s, the
early 1900s. I've got a whole list of Texas earthquakes that
occurred before fracking. Why do you think that happened?
Ms. Craddick. You've done your research obviously. You
know, we had a question earlier about Irving. When you look at
the history of Irving, it actually is an earthquake capital of
Texas that really--we don't have really any oil and gas going
on in it. So I think it's a fair suggestion to think there are
other things besides just oil and gas causing earthquakes at
this point.
Mr. Palmer. How about Oklahoma? There's been a long history
of earthquakes in Oklahoma I know. It may not be a fair
question for you since you're not from Oklahoma, but isn't that
true as well, that there have been a number over the last 100
years of earthquakes in Oklahoma that probably were not
attributable to any human activity?
Ms. Craddick. I believe--even though I'm not from Oklahoma,
we obviously share a border and we pay attention and work with
their commission as well, and so that would be a fair
statement, yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. It's also true of Colorado and it's a little
more difficult because they've only, in terms of history,
recently been tracking Colorado earthquakes. I think maybe the
earliest was 1870, but they had a series of earthquakes that
occurred in Colorado that cost of damage in the early 1900s in
Denver. And obviously there's more damages, there's more
building and more settlement and more people moving in. You
start to notice these things as there's more people.
I'd also like to say something from a report from the
University of Texas Institute of Geophysics, the Jackson School
of Geosciences. It talks about along the Gulf Coast and
Northeast Texas these--the earthquakes with magnitudes between
M4 and M4.8. It says, ``fortunately, the vast majority of
petroleum fields and injection wells do not cause earthquakes
and the majority of human-cause earthquakes are small and
harmless.'' Would you agree with that?
Ms. Craddick. That's what we've seen thus far, yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. Also in regard to methane emissions
since we're on the topic, the University of Texas, there was a
research report done through the University of Texas that was
done in close coordination with the Environmental Defense Fund.
I think our--one of our witnesses works for them. And they
basically found that EPA's estimates for methane emissions are
far lower than what anti-fracking groups frequently claim. As a
matter of fact, I think as the newer technology has been
employed, that they're capturing most of these emissions now.
What do you--could you validate that?
Ms. Craddick. Well, we don't do air emissions. We do work
with our sister agency, the TCEQ in Texas, and they are telling
us and believe that our emissions from methane have dropped
about 70 percent in Texas since 2001.
Mr. Palmer. So could we possibly conclude from that that as
the technology has improved that methane capture has improved
along with it?
Ms. Craddick. I believe that would be a fair conclusion,
yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. One last thing is it was mentioned
that this--that states ought to be able to regulate--well,
actually it was Justice Brandeis was quoted but I believe it
was Justice Brandeis that referred to the states as
laboratories of democracy. I agree with that statement and I
think that the states have--particularly since they have more
knowledge of their geological issues than the Federal
Government does in many respects, that these things should be
dealt with at the state level.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. And thank you, Mr. Palmer.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I want to echo sentiments shared earlier by our Ranking
Member.
It's very odd to have a hearing in which we seem to be
belittling local communities for their decision-making about
their own quality of life. I think that kind of freedom is the
essence of our democracy. To claim that communities are making
these decisions simply because of bad information is rather
interesting but irrelevant. I can point out that bad
information on climate change or on the costs of the Affordable
Care Act, which some refer to as ObamaCare, seem to be driving
all kinds of voter choices around our country, but I don't
think my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to
work very hard to set those records straight.
So to my questions, first to Mr. Lomax, in your testimony
you state that research by Energy In Depth found that many of
the research papers cited by the State of New York's health
review of the process of hydraulic fracturing were financed by
groups that oppose fracking. Is that correct?
Mr. Lomax. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. And you also cite a specific study where the
authors fail to mention that they have direct ties to
opposition groups. Is that correct?
Mr. Lomax. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. So it seems to me that the point you're trying
to make is that we should not trust the results of these
studies because the work is financed by groups opposed to
fracking. That is a bit ironic given the fact that the Energy
In Depth effort was founded by the Independent Petroleum
Association of America, along with financial support from the
American Petroleum Institute, the API, Chevron, Shell, BP, and
other oil and gas companies. So by your logic we should not
trust Energy In Depth either.
When Energy In Depth was launched by IPAA in June of 2009,
they sent out a letter announcing its launch. The letter said,
``EnergyInDepth.org, a state-of-the-art online resource center
to combat new environmental regulations, especially with regard
to hydraulic fracturing.''
In a paper by one of your colleagues, Chris Tucker,
published last year, he described how Energy In Depth helps to
combat opponents of hydraulic fracturing. And he wrote, ``The
EID teams also help generate and guide stories behind the
scenes. This year alone the number of new stories influenced
was in the hundreds.'' And he goes on to say that ``EID
regularly engages on social networks such as Twitter, Facebook,
and YouTube always with the goal of driving the debate.'' Mr.
Lomax, appearing before a congressional committee isn't a very
behind-the-scenes way to drive the debate, but I appreciate
this opportunity to ask how you generate and guide stories
behind the scenes. With a number of news stories influenced by
EID in the hundreds, could you tell us how you carry out that
influence?
Mr. Lomax. Let me deal first with your question about the
failure to disclose ties to the campaigns trying to ban
fracking in New York by researchers who were producing papers
cited by the State of New York in order to ban fracking. My
criticism of that practice was the failure to disclose those
ties so that this research was--and these researchers in effect
misrepresented themselves as unbiased observers as opposed to
advocates. I am----
Mr. Tonko. But to--you know, I only have so much time with
my questioning----
Mr. Lomax. Right.
Mr. Tonko. --here. Just to the question, how do you carry
out your influence? I'd rather hear about that right now.
Mr. Lomax. Well, I'm not sure about carrying out my
influence. I can tell you that I am, as I said before and I've
been very clear about, I am an oil and gas industry advocate.
I'm----
Mr. Tonko. Right, but you're involved in several behind-
the-scenes scenarios, so how do you carry out your influence?
What publications tend to be the most receptive to story ideas
pitched by your organization?
Mr. Lomax. I see my role both here before the Committee and
answering questions from anyone who has questions about the way
oil and gas is produced is to direct them to authoritative
sources like state regulatory agencies, like Federal regulatory
agencies, and members of academia who can help answer their
questions. That basically is the role that I serve and it is
very much--and I draw upon the skills that I have as a reporter
trying to find answers for myself.
Mr. Tonko. Let me also ask, though. Does the press even
know to contact you? How does it--I mean EID isn't exactly a
household name. How does it--is this like orchestrated behind
the scenes with an effort to obviously provide a bias? I mean
researchers who observed real occurrences are not biased to
reality perhaps? What contacts do the press have? How do they
know to reach the EID?
Mr. Lomax. Well, they first of all could go to our website,
EnergyInDepth.org. My email address at Energy In Depth is
[email protected]. I don't think that there is much about
Energy In Depth that is hidden or behind the scenes, as you
suggest.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I was only quoting from the individual
who's in charge of carrying forth the mission.
Mr. Lomax. Okay. My--I see my role, and it's one that I am
very proud to hold as an advocate for the oil and gas industry,
is to get facts in front of people who want to see them. And
that's really as far as it goes.
Mr. Tonko. Well, it's always it----
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Tonko. I reminded that it was the goal of driving the
debate that the presentation was done.
Mr. Lomax. I think I said in an earlier answer that the
people that I am privileged to work with in the oil and gas
industry, particularly geologists and engineers and other
technical experts, they want a debate driven by facts, and
someone has to put the facts--someone has to help disseminate
the facts, and energy in depth, particularly through its
website, makes those facts available.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
all the witnesses who are here today.
It's interesting we're talking about facts and science and
true science. Just last week, I was subjected to an interview
by a member of the media who asked me to make a statement
regarding global warming and climate change. And as a
conservative, as an outdoorsman, I made a complete statement,
that I think we need to look at true science and the facts,
that we see the science, but at the same time we shouldn't
pollute our land. We should be good stewards of the
environment.
Unfortunately, the reporter decided to parse my statement
and take out all of the parts that did not support the end of
which he wanted to make his article. And I'm afraid I'm seeing
more and more of that to where even in some of the scientific
communities where in the past opinions--scientific opinions
were based on true science or fact, but today it seems that
we're manipulating the facts to support whatever end--political
end that we want to come up to.
And so the question goes back to some research from a
minority staff report on the Senate Environmental and Public
Works Committee from October of last year. The New York-based
Park Foundation asked Professor Howarth to write an academic
article that would make a case that Shell gas was a dangerous,
polluting fuel. Later that year, the Foundation paid $135,000
for that study.
When the study came out, allegations mounted that there was
data manipulation and unsubstantiated assumptions. In the end,
it was almost universally condemned by the current
Administration and others in academia, and later by the
Environmental Defense Fund. However, environmental activists
such as Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Bill McKibben of 350.org
supported the work as proof that hydraulic fracturing was worse
than coal.
Dr. Siegel, how can this type of paper ever make it past
the peer-review process?
Dr. Siegel. That's a very--that's a good question. I'm glad
you asked it. I know Bob Howarth quite well. I've debated him
actually. And he's a very good estuarine ecologist, among other
things.
The problem really in the review process, and I speak as
much as an editor as a contributor to publications, is that--
let me just give you very quickly how it happens. A scientist
submits a paper to a journal and it goes to the chief editor.
The chief editor then assigns an associate editor to handle the
paper. The associate editor then has to find three to five
reviewers, peer reviewers, who would review it to be nonbiased
and so forth, to review the paper. Usually the person writing
the paper suggests three names and the editor or the associate
editor can assess whether those names would be okay, and then
they pick some others from outside. It's not unlike NSF and how
they do their work, okay?
The problem that's happened is that the publication system
is so overwhelmed with submittals that a lot of editors simply
will take whoever is offered as possible reviewers by the
author in order to actually get the peer review. And that's
what probably happened in the papers that we're referring to
with respect to the Health Department ruling in New York.
In my case, for example, the paper that I submitted just
got published, you know, I chose a professor at Penn State, who
is clearly unbiased, National Academy of Science person. I
chose a couple people from the United States Geological Survey
who I thought knew a lot about methane and had done independent
work, and I purposely did not choose from my reviewers who I
recommended anyone who I thought would be biased, you know,
towards the oil and gas industry. And I know who those people
are----
Mr. Loudermilk. Right.
Dr. Siegel. --okay? And so I got the review back and there
are some really good comments and we modify the paper to
address certain concerns and out it went. But that kind of
openness that I think I'm proud that I do on my review issues,
you know, is--sometimes doesn't happen. And clearly there have
been a lot of papers--a lot--a number of papers that have been
opposing hydraulic fracking who have been--these papers have
been really pretty outrageous. And when I ask the editors,
well, who reviewed these papers, let them out, and I discovered
that it's a community of people who have common views.
Mr. Loudermilk. They have an end in mind?
Dr. Siegel. They have an end in mind. And it's just
unfortunate. But part of it is the system is clogged. I've
written a couple essays on this, published in Science and
Nature, you know, on--there's just too many papers being
submitted, too few reviewers to do it capably, and so stuff is
getting out that just really isn't very good.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to return to the issue of injection-induced
seismicity. And just first a general question: What fraction of
hydrofracking operations depend on wastewater injection for
their economic viability? So specifically let's imagine that in
some area it turns out that wastewater injection had to be
restricted because of seismicity concerns. Is that a mortal
blow to fracking operations or merely a nuisance? Anyone who
wants to----
Mr. Holstein. If I understood your question, over 90
percent of the wells being drilled now are unconventional oil
and gas wells, and they frequently use large quantities of
water, as noted in my testimony. There--because of concerns
about earthquakes and because of concerns about other problems,
impacts on taxpayers, for example, in the State of Pennsylvania
where the publicly owned water treatment works simply couldn't
handle some of the materials that were coming back--that were
coming to those treatment works in wastewater, states have been
racing to put in place new measures to protect the taxpayers
and their water supplies. But yes.
And so now in Pennsylvania they don't do injection wells at
all and the wastewater goes to the State of Ohio mainly that
still permits deep water--excuse me, deep well injection. So it
is a common practice----
Mr. Foster. But typically there are alternatives----
Mr. Holstein. Yes.
Mr. Foster. --if it turns out that it's only the wastewater
injection that's the big problem?
Mr. Holstein. Industry is working on recycling but you
can't do the scale of hydraulic fracturing that the industry is
employing now without these large volumes as far as I know.
Mr. Foster. Yeah. Now, in areas where there appears to have
been an increase in seismic activity associated with drilling
and injection operations, is there evidence of either insurance
rates going up or property values going down? And if that does
happen, what is the legal framework for homeowners, you know,
recovering for their losses?
Mr. Lomax. I can give you some information about property
values in Weld County, Colorado, which is the county that has
more oil and gas wells in it than any other in Colorado. It has
almost half of the State's 50,000. And property values in Weld
County have been growing significantly at the same time as
increased oil and gas development, and there are some
wastewater disposal wells in Weld County, Colorado. So in Weld
County there is an increase in values.
Mr. Foster. Relative comparably situated places without the
drilling activities? I understand Colorado real estate is doing
pretty well these days. This is a side-by-side comparison or
just an absolute statement that----
Mr. Lomax. This is based on some commentary from the Weld
County Tax Assessor, who was asked specifically about do you
see any kind of impact on oil and gas--do you see any impact on
property values based on proximity to oil and gas operations,
including wastewater disposal wells? And he has said that they
don't see any difference between that and the rest of the
county.
Mr. Foster. Okay. And it's my understanding there's at
least anecdotal evidence that in Oklahoma, that there are some
unhappy local residents who might be--there might be some
affect there for--of lowering property values. Anyway, I--okay.
Another thing has to do with the timescale for observing
and diagnosing seismic activity as a result of drilling or
wastewater injection. You can imagine different geological
scenarios, one of which is that you start the wastewater
injection and you have a very large number of small quakes or
that there's--nothing happens and that you just simply get a
stress buildup underground to the point where you get, after a
long period of time, one giant or relatively large quake.
And how would you actually correctly identify the causal
link? It would be easy in the first case because you could
start and stop the wastewater injection and watch the seismic
activity start and stop. In the second one, it sounds tough
because you're talking about something where you could--where a
large seismic event could be the result of a long--you know,
decades of drilling. And how do you handle that from a
liability point of view and from even identifying the causal
relationship there?
Ms. Craddick. I think that's what we're all trying to
figure out at this point because if you look, for instance, in
the Permian Basin, we've obviously been drilling for a long
time and don't really see a lot of earthquakes at this point
out there. But if you look in the Barnett Shale, which is where
the SMU study is from, we've been drilling actively since 2008
but the amount of drilling has declined because it's a natural
gas play by quite a bit.
So that's where both seismologists and scientists are
trying to figure out because I'm not sure you can ever
completely find the answer to your question. That's the biggest
challenge is your modeling. It depends on the modeling of the
scientific study, as I've been advised, and the researchers
looking at that, but it's not--there's not one best model at
this point.
Mr. Foster. Okay. My question about the legal framework,
you know, if in the end it looks like some real damage to the
seismic stability has been done by these operations, what is
the legal framework? Do individual homeowners have to sue
someone who may have gone out of business years ago or what is
the----
Chairman Smith. Could we have a brief answer to this
question? We're going to try to finish before we have to leave
for votes.
And who do you--Mr. Foster, who are you directing the
question to?
Mr. Foster. Anyone who feels capable of answering it.
Mr. Holstein. Congressman, I'll say I don't know the legal
framework but I'd emphasize that this is--exactly makes this
conundrum--exactly makes my point earlier, which is that the
oil and gas industry is not static, and therefore, regulatory
oversight and scientific inquiry must keep up with the ever-
changing elements and challenges associated with this heavy
industry.
Mr. Foster. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Foster.
If the three remaining Members who have questions can limit
themselves to three minutes each, we can get you all in. We
have an hour's worth of votes so I'd like to spare the
witnesses having to wait for us.
So, Mr. Moolenaar, you're up next.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be real quick.
Ms. Craddick, thank you for being here. I wanted to get
your perspective. It sounds like in Texas you work very hard to
work with the local communities and there's a partnership that
you've been able to work out in resolving concerns. The
question about the Federal Government's role, I know in
Michigan we've been doing fracking for many years and our
Department of Environmental Quality has done I think a very
good job communicating with citizens about the technologies
being used, and I don't see a big role for the Federal
Government in this.
What is your sense? I mean you're on the ground floor
working with this both on the state level but also working with
local communities. Do you see a role for the Federal Government
that would in some way address issues that are not being
addressed currently at the state level?
Ms. Craddick. We think we do it best at the state, quite
frankly, Congressman. You know, when you look at Texas, we've
had a casing fracking rule in place for 50 years. EPA is just
now proposing one. So they're way behind where the technology
is. So we think it's better stayed and working with local
communities.
At the Railroad Commission, we don't deal with noise
pollution, traffic issues. Those are local issues, so that's
where we encourage operators to really work with those local
communities and be good citizens. So--but I'm not sure where
EPA or other Federal agencies--and we're blessed that we don't
have a lot of the Federal lands like some of the Western--other
Western states do. But most of us who have been active in oil
and gas for a long time, the states already have rules in place
and it would add another layer of bureaucracy is the biggest
concern.
Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Chairwoman Craddick, it's good to see you. And
I wanted to just make--ask you a question about just some of
the recent activities that have happened in Texas, and I think
that it's perfectly reasonable that we would want to be able to
produce any of our fossil fuels and natural resources that we
have for energy here so we don't have to depend upon the Middle
East right now, particularly with all the craziness that's
going on over there. I think it's perfectly reasonable that we
want to be able to produce our minerals.
I also think that it's perfectly reasonable, whether you
are a fisherman or if you're a hunter, or if you just like
gardening in your backyard, that you want to be able to have
clean air and clean water. And that is where your agency and
city councils and what have you, they take those things into
consideration when trying to pass ordinances.
Now, in 2009, your hometown of Midland had some issues with
spacing. The city council there, which is a community that is
pretty much completely dependent upon oil and gas for the most
part, they wanted to be able to create an environment where the
city could thrive and prosper for economic development reasons,
for the enjoyment of property, and you--they ultimately passed
ordinances.
Now, the City of Denton did that, too, and the legislature
acted and Denton is a much more progressive or liberal city
than Midland is. Do you think that these cities are being
treated fairly in regards to being able to outline rules for
themselves and how they want their city to be able to function?
Because it just seems like there's some unfairness there. It
seems like what Denton was trying to do was the same thing that
Midland was trying to do; they were trying to come up with a
policy that was good for their particular city.
Ms. Craddick. Yeah, I think the difference between
Midland--what Midland has done, which I think most people
consider reasonable setbacks, that they worked with local
operators and communities to try to figure out what is--what
worked for their community. The difference is that in Denton
they have banned the use of anybody in Denton being able to
develop their own private property, whereas with a local
ordinance, you still can with horizontal drilling develop those
properties because you can have a reasonable setback.
And look, I think we all agree that being 500 feet or
whatever a community considers appropriate for a setback to
protect health and safety is not unreasonable. But then
hydraulic fracturing in a community, the private property
rights of those individuals, you've basically banned drilling,
which historically, as you know, has been the purview of a
state--the state to regulate it, and so that's the debate right
now going on in the Texas Legislature and we'll see where they
get.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Veasey.
And the gentleman from Texas, another gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Babin is recognized.
Mr. Babin. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Chairman Craddick, thank you for your leadership. Thank all
you witnesses for being here today. But thank you, Ms.
Craddick, too, for your leadership of the Railroad Commission
of Texas.
You know, Texas has provided about 50 percent of the jobs
in this country over the last six years, and I think fracking
has been a huge contributor to that in more ways than one. But
I represent the 36th District in Texas, in southeast Texas.
There was an incident in 2012 where an individual claimed that
the water from their garden hose lit on fire. As it turned out,
a Texas District Court found that the individual had
coordinated this stunt with an environmental activist to
deceive. In this case, the garden hose was attached to the gas
line.
How does your commission respond to these types of claims
when you hear about this?
Ms. Craddick. If somebody complains that they believe that
a well has--and their water is on fire----
Mr. Babin. Right.
Ms. Craddick. --we're going to go out there and inspect it,
first and foremost--
Mr. Babin. Right.
Ms. Craddick. --get the facts. If there really is a
problem, we are going to penalize and enforce--make sure, one
there's remediation for the problem; and two, then penalize or
enforce the rules that we have available to us.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Well, as far as the actual number of
legitimate incidents of concern, perhaps only a handful, from
what I can read, have studies. How do we put these risks into
perspective with the enormous economic and societal benefits of
hydraulic fracking technology?
Ms. Craddick. Historically, we've drilled over a million
wells in the State of Texas, and we take all of those
seriously. We have over 400,000 that are active wells that we
are regulating as we speak. And----
Mr. Babin. Yeah.
Ms. Craddick. --part of our real challenge is to make sure
we're out inspecting and enforcing our rules but to make sure
we're also doing it on a reasonable basis, that there are good
rules in place, people know the rules, but to also make sure
there are facts involved, and I think----
Mr. Babin. Yeah.
Ms. Craddick. --we're a very fact-based agency. We have
good rules I believe.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you very much----
Ms. Craddick. Thank you.
Mr. Babin. --Mr. Chairman. I know we have to go vote.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
Let me thank all of our witnesses today. This has been an
exceptionally good hearing. And I want to say to you all it's a
credit to you and a credit to the significance of this subject
that we had 20 Members appear at this hearing. That's probably
a new record any time but it's certainly a new record for a
nine-o'clock-in-the-morning hearing. So I again appreciate your
presence.
Now, hydraulic fracturing has occurred safely for decades
and is largely responsible for an improved economy, expansion
of energy options, and less reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
Given this history and importance to our economy, attempts to
regulate the process should be based on sound science and not
science fiction.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
written comments and written questions from Members.
Again, I thank the Members and the witnesses, and we stand
adjourned.
Mr. Holstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]