[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                             DRILLING DOWN:
                    OVERSIGHT OF THE CHALLENGES AND
                       OPPORTUNITIES FACING U.S.
                           ENERGY PRODUCTION

=======================================================================

                             FIELD HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                             APRIL 23, 2024
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-104
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  

                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-545 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024                                
                             


               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                Kim Waskowsky, Professional Staff Member
                          David Ehmen, Counsel
                     Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

          Subcommittee On Economic Growth, Energy Policy, And 
                           Regulatory Affairs

                      Pat Fallon, Texas, Chairman
Byron Donalds, Florida               Cori Bush, Missouri, Ranking 
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania                Minority Member
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida               Columbia
Nick Langworthy, New York            Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Mike Waltz, Florida                  Ro Khanna, California
                                     Vacancy

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Hearing held on April 23, 2024...................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              


Tim Tarpley, President, Energy Workforce and Technology Council
Oral Statement...................................................     3

Ron Gusek, President, Liberty Energy
Oral Statement...................................................     6

Bill desRosiers, Manager of External Affairs, Coterra Energy
Oral Statement...................................................     7

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              


  * No additional documents were entered into the record for this 
  hearing.

 
                             DRILLING DOWN:
                    OVERSIGHT OF THE CHALLENGES AND
                       OPPORTUNITIES FACING U.S.
                           ENERGY PRODUCTION

                              ----------                              


                    Tuesday, April 23, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

          Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and

                           Regulatory Affairs

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., at 
The Nature & Retreat Center at Oak Point Park, 5901 Los Rios 
Boulevard, Plano Texas, Hon. Pat Fallon [Chairman of the 
Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Fallon and Sessions.
    Also present: Representatives Weber, Van Duyne, and Self.
    Mr. Fallon. This field hearing on the Subcommittee on 
Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs come to 
order. I want to welcome everyone, particularly our witnesses, 
thank you for coming. And my colleagues as well. Without 
objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any time. I 
recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Today's hearing is a unique opportunity to bring the 
economic energy and regulatory affairs conversations in 
Washington to the great and free state of Texas. Texas has long 
been a leader in energy production, helping to provide the 
world with the affordable, reliable energy that many of us so 
oftentimes take for granted. From turning a light switch, to 
the plastics and goods we use daily, the uses of hydrocarbons 
are the basis in the fossil fuel energy sources, such as 
petroleum natural gas, are everywhere we look. It is just 
absolutely imbued into the fabric of our everyday lives.
    We have our energy producers and workforce in Texas and 
across the country to thank for that. Instead of vilifying 
them, they should be thanked for what they do and what they 
provide for this great country and the national security 
implications as well.
    In 2019, the United States became a net energy exporter for 
the first time since the 1950's. This simply does not happen 
overnight, it was not magic, it was not just good timing. It 
was because of strong leadership and significant technological 
innovation. The strong leadership by President Trump slashed 
the red tape and enabled companies to invest in production and 
providing them reliability and stability when those investments 
were made, instead of fighting with arrogant, quite frankly, 
arrogant self-important government bureaucrats.
    Technological innovations, such as those used in the 
development of hydro or hydraulic fracking and the horizontal 
drilling helped--I mean, it really changed the game and helped 
us gain access to resources thought to be unreachable prior to 
the shale revolution. American leadership and energy helped 
dramatically reduce global energy prices and brought 
significant economic prosperity to both the community supplying 
these resources and the communities across the globe who have 
experienced improved standards of living. This is no small feat 
and one that we should take an immense amount of pride in as a 
country and as a state.
    Unfortunately, the Biden Administration and congressional 
Democrats have sought to vilify the energy industry for 
contributing to climate change. And they blame hardworking 
folks, like the ones here in Texas, for their problems. They 
call us shills. They say that we took this job in Congress to 
be shills for the energy industry, which is, as I can see 
Congresswoman Van Duyne laughing, because it is absolutely so 
ludicrous.
    In 2019, the Biden Administration promised to ``end fossil 
fuels'' and has since sought to push a green-at-all-costs 
agenda and policies that are often more expensive and make us 
more reliant on, of all things, the Chinese supply chains to 
sustain our way of life. The Administration wants Americans to 
believe that wind and solar energy can alone support the grid 
right now. And that is just--listen, I say this quite often--
and Congressman Sessions has heard this--I can ride my unicorn 
to this hearing and visit the mermaids out in the ponds, and it 
is all going to be paid for by leprechauns, or we can live 
within the bounds of reality and talk about our energy needs in 
a realistic way.
    In reality, we all know that we will be relying on fossil 
fuels for many years to come. I think it is--we should take 
note that last year in the State of the Union address, the 
President of the United States said that we may need fossil 
fuels in 10 years. We may need them in 10 years. That is the 
President of the United States saying that in the State of the 
Union address.
    So, from canceling pipelines to banning liquefied natural 
gas exports, the Biden Administration believes that caving into 
the whims of climate activists and billionaire donors will make 
the world a better place. And, quite frankly, it will not. This 
could not be further from the truth.
    Over the past 100 years--I am sorry, over the past 200 
years, with the rise of modern energy production, human life 
expectancies have risen from 30 to 70 years. And the percentage 
of global population living and significant poverty, surviving 
on no less than $2 a day, has dropped to less than 10 percent. 
In fact, if you look across all demographics within American 
society, White, Hispanic, Black, and other ethnic groups, from 
1900 to today, life expectancies have doubled.
    There is no wealthy country in the world that does not 
require a significant amount of energy to sustain their way of 
life. And there is no impoverished country that can improve 
their standard of living without stable and affordable energy. 
None of these achievements would be possible without the 
hardworking men and women within the energy industry. Many of 
whom work long hours and take on some danger as well and spend 
years learning and perfecting the skills necessary to meet 
growing energy needs.
    Technical programs across the country such as Coterra's 
energy partnership with Lackawanna School of Petroleum and 
Natural Gas saw the need to improve access to skills training 
within their communities and jumped into action to help fulfill 
this need. For folks wanting to pursue a career in energy, we 
need to provide them with the opportunities to do so and do so 
right now.
    Regardless of what the Biden Administration tells you, we 
have, and will, rely upon fossil fuels well into the future, 
and we are all going to be better off for it.
    I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming today. I 
look forward to learning more from each of you. Again, God gave 
us one mouth and two ears. So, we are going to listen and ask 
some hopefully good questions and learn. And thank you for 
being here today. Thank you for the opportunity to visit with 
you all and learn. And without objection, Representative Van 
Duyne of Texas, Representative Self of Texas, and 
Representative Weber of Texas are all waived on to the 
Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the witnesses at 
today's field hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
    I am pleased to welcome all of our witnesses here today. We 
have Mr. Tim Tarpley, the President of the Energy Workforce and 
Technology Council; Mr. Ron, is it, Gusek?
    Mr. Gusek. Gusek.
    Mr. Fallon. OK, so it is not that scary. Mr. Ron Gusek, the 
President of Liberty Energy; and Mr. Bill desRosiers, the 
manager of External Affairs for Coterra Energy. Thank you all 
for being here today. We appreciate it. We look forward to 
hearing your testimony and asking questions.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please 
stand and raise their hand.
    Do you solemnly swear to tell the--affirm your testimony 
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Please let the record show that the witnesses answered in 
the affirmative. You can take your seats. And we appreciate you 
here with us today and look forward to your testimony. Let me 
remind the witnesses that we have read your written statements, 
and they will appear in full in the hearing record. Please 
limit your oral statements, if you can, to 5 minutes. As a 
reminder, please press the little button here. And there will 
be a green light in 4 minutes, there will be a yellow light for 
a minute, and then red, if you can just wrap it up. This is a 
field hearing, so we are going to be a little softer on things 
and time right now. But I now recognize Mr. Tarpley for his 
opening statement.

                        STATEMENT OF TIM TARPLEY

                               PRESIDENT

                ENERGY WORKFORCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

    Mr. Tarpley. Chairman Fallon, distinguished Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify here today. 
I am here in my capacity as President of the Energy Workforce 
and Technology Council, which is the National Trade Association 
for the Energy Services and Technology Sector, representing 
over 200 companies and employing more than 650,000 energy 
workers, manufacturers, and innovators throughout the United 
States, and 350,000 here in Texas.
    Our country is blessed with tremendous sources of domestic 
energy that, if fully utilized, will provide us energy security 
for generations to come. The United States and the world will 
be challenged to meet the growing demand for oil and gas in the 
coming decades, even as new forms of energy come online. The 
U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that the 
worldwide demand for all forms of energy will increase by 50 
percent by 2050. AI and data centers are feeling a huge 
increase in power demand forecasts. There is simply no way to 
meet this growing need without a tremendous buildout in natural 
gas power generation.
    Unfortunately, instead of taking steps to support the 
production of more energy here at home, the Biden 
Administration has used every delay tactic and legal maneuver 
possible to deny Americans access to these resources. It took 
Congress passing language in the Inflation Reduction Act to 
force Interior to restart the lease sales at all, despite the 
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requiring a 5-year leasing 
plan to have been in place. Even then, the 5-year plan Interior 
released--over a year late, by the way--includes the lowest 
number of lease sales in the history of the program.
    In 2022, the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and natural gas 
industry supported an estimated 372,000 jobs in the United 
States. According to the Energy Industrial Advisory Partners 
Report, and a joint NOIA report, in 2022, alone, activity in 
the Gulf of Mexico contributed approximately $30.8 billion to 
the U.S. GDP. Not only do we see the economic benefits of this 
in the U.S. from this production, but the Gulf boasts 
approximately half the carbon intensity of other producing 
regions.
    The limits are not just centered to the Gulf of Mexico 
either. The Administration just removed 13 million acres of the 
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska from development.
    Additionally, on January 26th of this year, DOE announced 
that it would pause new approvals for LNG export applications 
to non-FTA countries. Many of the projects would have 
ultimately shifted American-produced LNG to Europe, Asia, and 
other allies that do not have a free trade agreement with the 
United States.
    Shockingly, the Administration has taken this action 
despite the President's pledge to do the exact opposite in 2022 
after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
    Over the past decade, prices at Henry Hub have maintained 
an average of approximately $4.10 MMBtu, which is a reduction 
of over 54 percent compared to the preceding decade. This shows 
us that the U.S. natural gas market can accommodate the 
increased demand from new LNG terminals well before their 
operation begins, with the predictability of long-term 
contracts and minimizing fluctuations of domestic prices.
    I am sure many of you all know here in Texas, in addition 
to oil and gas, we are known for Blue Bell Ice Cream. They like 
to say we eat all we can and sell the rest. The same can be 
said for natural gas. We have enough gas in the United States 
to provide low cost, low emissions energy for the American 
people, and we can sell the rest to our friends and allies.
    Ironically, the end result of this pause will likely 
increase overall emissions. According to the EIA, the United 
States has lowered our emissions since 2005, more than nearly 
anywhere in the world, primarily by transitioning coal-fired 
power generation to natural gas. Why would we deny our friends 
and allies abroad the ability to do the same? We all breathe 
the same air.
    In addition to limiting access to resources, the 
Administration has taken steps to increase the cost of domestic 
production of energy. Beginning in 2025, the methane Emissions 
Reduction Program will implement a tax on the reported prior 
year tons of methane emissions from oil and natural gas systems 
that exceed more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide 
equivalent gas. This action will likely raise the cost of 
producing energy in the United States, and I am especially 
concerned that it could disproportionately impact small 
producers.
    Not only can we increase oil and gas production in the 
United States by reducing regulatory burdens, but technological 
advancements are allowing us to produce more oil and gas more 
efficiently than ever before.
    Drilling efficiencies have increased dramatically in the 
past 10 years. In March of this year, according to Baker 
Hughes, there were 629 drilling rigs active in the United 
States. That is down 16 percent from the 732 total rigs around 
the U.S. during the same time last year.
    However, U.S. crude output was higher than ever. What does 
this mean? It means we are using less resources to produce more 
energy than ever before. That is good news for everybody.
    Energy service companies have perfected EFrac, which 
involves electrifying the hydraulic fracturing process by 
recycling excess natural gas, using it to power turbines for 
fracturing and pumping. This approach has resulted into 25 
percent reduction in emissions, and up to 90 percent savings in 
fuel costs. Technologies like artificial intelligence, internet 
of things, 3D printing, and big data have all become widely 
used across the energy industry in the past decade. Automated 
drilling tools enhance drilling efficiency, improve accuracy, 
reduce human errors, and are safer to operate. Methane 
monitoring equipment continues to grow more efficient by the 
year.
    Every day, innovation is leading the charge in American 
energy production. And we are just getting started. All of 
these innovations and efficiencies will continue in the coming 
decades. American's leading the way and meeting the growing 
global demand and doing so with lower emissions than ever 
before. We have abundant resources right here under our feet, 
and American ingenuity continues to thrive. If we make the 
right policy choices, we can take care of our own energy needs 
as well as supporting our friends and allies. American families 
will continue to have access to the most affordable and 
reliable energy system that the world has ever seen.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Gusek for his 
opening statement.

                         STATEMENT OF RON GUSEK

                               PRESIDENT

                             LIBERTY ENERGY

    Mr. Gusek. Thank you, Chairman Fallon and distinguished 
Members of the Subcommittee. I am Ron Gusek, President of 
Liberty Energy. Liberty is the leading oil field services 
company that employs over 5,000 people, and offers cutting-edge 
services and technologies to our partners in oil and natural 
gas production. While Liberty operates in various regions 
across the United States, we have a substantial footprint here 
in the state of Texas. We have offices or facilities in the 
Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio metro areas. We also have a 
sizable presence in the Midland-Odessa area, where we are in 
the process of building a $50 million, 240-square foot 
operations center. I would estimate that around half of 
Liberty's employees regularly work in the state of Texas.
    We are proud to say that about 10 percent of total primary 
energy production in the United States comes from wells fracked 
by Liberty. Liberty has been a leader in next generation frac 
technologies that reduce impacts on the environment. Two 
examples are the quiet frac fleet technology, which makes pumps 
undetectable above ambient noise at distances of 500 feet, and 
our leadership in replacing diesel fueled frac fleets with 
natural gas fueled frac fleets.
    In addition to our regular reports and other securities 
filings, Liberty publishes the ``Bettering Human Lives'' 
report, which discusses the profound improvement in human 
material conditions brought about by hydrocarbon energy and 
Liberty's contributions to it.
    We firmly believe that fossil fuels drive immense benefits 
for our company, consumers, the American economy, and 
ultimately the world. We do not apologize for it. Fossil fuels 
have transformed humanity, lifting billions out of poverty, and 
more than doubling human life expectancy.
    It is popular among some audiences today to suggest that 
somehow the U.S. and other countries are going to transition 
away from fossil fuels in the coming decades. That cannot and 
will not happen. But a willful ignorance of this reality is 
driving politically motivated attacks on our industry that will 
impoverish American consumers and ultimately the world.
    Over the past several years, climate idealists and their 
allies in the Biden Administration have launched a whole-of-
government attack on energy production, deploying a series of 
interlocking rulemaking spread across time and agencies to 
thwart simple legal challenge and maximize their chance of 
success. Much like the EPA and the Obama Administration's 
ambitious clean power plan, these agencies also lack the power 
to enact these regulations. But their hope is there are so many 
regulations, and that each individually is small enough that 
they will fly under the radar. This blitz of regulation spans 
all stages of energy production and use. Some address initial 
capital formation, seeking to prevent energy companies from 
gaining access to the capital necessary to produce energy by 
burdening them with excessive disclosures designed to prevent 
investment.
    Regulations of this sort include the SEC's climate rule, 
the Department of Labor's ERISA ESG rule, the FAR Council's 
Greenhouse Gas and Sustainable Government Procurement Rules, 
and California's pair of unconstitutional and federally 
preempted climate disclosures laws.
    Other regulations seek to limit oil and natural gas 
production by setting onerous rules that prevent or add cost to 
exploration, drilling, extraction, and refining, or that limit 
the distribution of oil and natural gas by adding costs or 
creating barriers that make it impossible to build pipelines or 
export terminals. Regulations of this sort include EPA's new 
methane rule, EPA's waste emissions charge rule, the 
weaponization of NEPA and FERC to prevent pipeline 
construction, PHMSA's PIPES Act implementation, and the 
Department of Energy's January LNG export terminal delay.
    Still other regulations target end users and seek to limit 
the market for oil and natural gas by applying a patchwork of 
Federal regulations that disfavor the biggest consumers of 
natural gas and oil: power plants, and internal combustion 
engines; or by forcing states to adopt rules with similar 
effects. Regulations of this sort include EPA's new power plant 
rule; the dozens of interlocking electric vehicle mandate rules 
promulgated by EPA, the Department of Transportation, and 
California; EPA's new ambient air quality standards; and EPA's 
new good neighbor rule. Still others defy NAAQS categorization. 
The Biden Administration has put out hundreds of regulations 
filling tens of thousands of pages of the Federal Register that 
amounts to death for the energy industry by 1,000 cuts. If they 
stand, these rules will impose severe compliance costs on 
energy companies, raise the price of energy, and have a 
remarkably negative impact on human lives. The regulation's 
attempt to justify their enormous costs by pointing to benefits 
associated with avoiding climate change. But as I explained in 
my written statement, the science used to justify these 
benefits is dubious at best.
    Worst still, this cost will be borne for no actual benefit 
to the climate; as increased costs for domestic energy does not 
reduce demand, but only serves to drive energy production and 
industry abroad to countries like Russia and China that will 
increase global GHG emissions. I look forward to discussing 
these issues with the Committee.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. desRosiers.

                      STATEMENT OF BILL desROSIERS

                      MANAGER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

                             COTERRA ENERGY

    Mr. desRosiers. Good morning, Chairman Fallon, and esteemed 
Members of the Committee. I am Bill desRosiers, and I am the 
Manager of External Affairs for Coterra Energy, and I am 
honored to address everyone here today. I traveled in from 
Pennsylvania, and I really appreciate the weather.
    Coterra Energy is dedicated to responsibly developing oil 
and natural gas across the country. We have operations in 
Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico; primarily 
focused in the Permian and Anadarko and Marcellus Shale basins.
    Today, I would like to discuss our commitment to workforce 
development, especially our education initiatives focused on 
the energy sector.
    Over the past decade, the landscape of the energy workforce 
has changed dramatically. Today's energy sector requires 
individuals with unique blends of technical skill, 
adaptability, and commitment to sustainability. Take our well 
site operators, for example. They no longer just perform manual 
labor but manage complex operations and contribute to our 
sustainability efforts.
    Yes, they are still working with wrenches and valves, but 
they are also calibrating sophisticated equipment--PLCs, 
working with PLCs, program logic controllers--and other 
electronics, and performing various emissions inspections. Most 
impressively, they are doing this in more and more rural parts 
of the country while interacting with various departments and 
agencies across the country.
    So, how do we find ourselves these individuals? How do we 
find this workforce? Coterra has invested in multiple programs, 
which I will discuss right now. We have three key areas that we 
focus on: Investing in energy and STEM education initiatives, 
middle school and high school level; supporting high school 
career and technology education programs, CTE; and providing 
significant backing to 2-year programs, like Lackawanna's 
College School of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Pennsylvania 
College of Technology, and various other programs that offer 
these 2-year associates of applied science degrees across the 
country.
    The linchpin of our approach, though, is dual enrollment, 
or concurrent enrollment, depending on which state you are in. 
That seamlessly bridges CTE education at the high school level 
with the college programs I just mentioned.
    After a decade of investment, we are proud to see that we 
have employees in the industry who have participated in these 
programs, and are now educating the next generation of 
employees through mentorship, internship, and various other 
opportunities.
    I would like to share a few stories to illustrate the 
impact these initiatives are having. First, let me share about 
Ben Whitaker, who is now a production foreman at Coterra up in 
the Marcellus Shale. He is actually the inspiration for much of 
this program I am discussing.
    Ben's journey began at the Scranton Technology Career 
Center and High School Program. And he went to work after that 
high school program at a defense contractor in northeast PA. 
After Federal budget cuts resulted in his layoff, he decided to 
enroll in the newly formed Lackawanna College School of 
Petroleum and Natural Gas, hoping more education would be the 
answer.
    During his time at the school, Ben became Coterra's first 
intern. After completing that program, he came to work for us. 
First on nights, then days, then worked his way up to lead 
operator. And now he is one of six foremen running our entire 
field, which is one of the most prolific fields in the entire 
country, if not the world.
    Now, I would like to discuss Zoey Wright--the most crucial 
story I can share here today. Zoey is currently a high school 
welding student who is duly enrolled in the School of Petroleum 
Natural Gas and her high school welding program. After coming 
to a few of our STEM energy camps and working with our 
employees, she decided that she wanted to go into the energy 
workforce. So, as a sophomore in high school, she enrolled in 
Lackawanna college's School of PNG. She would do high school 
welding during the day and attend night classes at night. So, 
before her senior year of high school, she had completed almost 
a year of that program, the college program. And we decided to 
take a gamble on her and bring her in as an intern. This is an 
internship that we typically reserve for second-year college 
students. And Zoey not only proceeded to do well in the 
internship, she thrived working under Ben Whitaker, who I just 
mentioned before.
    And our internships are designed as a progressive 
internship. You start with simple things like parts 
identification and safety, working side by side with your 
mentor before transitioning into more of an everyday role. And 
Zoey actually worked up to being a well tender on these sites, 
and that is real exciting. She is on track to graduate from 
high school this May, and she will most likely complete her 
programming in the next 6 to 9 months. And I do believe she 
will be traveling to West Virginia this summer to do another 
internship in the pipeline sector.
    I would like to highlight one other thing about Zoey. She 
is--I am a girl dad, so I got to jump out there and say this--
she is knocking down barriers in two separate male-dominated 
industries, and we are very proud of her for that. But I think 
she is proving to others that you can do high school career and 
technology education, you can go to college, and you can thrive 
in this energy industry that we are discussing today.
    I would like to just finish my testimony by recognizing one 
other initiative in the Permian Basin in southeast, southwest 
New Mexico. Paden Hagler, he graduated from college with the 
intention of being an educator, a teacher. But he realized that 
being a teacher in southern New Mexico is not a sustainable 
opportunity. So, he went to work in the industry where he 
learned how to weld, fabricate, and do emissions fact testing. 
After he saved enough money, he felt comfortable, he went back 
to teaching where he now leading efforts at a high school 
career technology program to create an energy pathway program 
modeled after this Lackawanna college program and some others 
around the country. So, we are starting to see the successful 
program work its way across the country, and we are proud to 
share those details today. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. desRosiers. Zoey, how much would 
you anticipate she is going to make when she starts?
    Mr. desRosiers. I would like to start by saying that she is 
going to acquire an associate's degree in applied science of 
technology, specifically in petroleum and natural gas. 
Typically, the graduates out of that program either go into 
wellsite technology, like I described working for Coterra, or 
they can go into, say, pipeline specialties, working for 
Williams or Target Resources. So, depending on that pathway, 
there might be some change, but we are seeing anywhere from 
$70,000 to $90,000.
    Mr. Fallon. And how old is Zoey?
    Mr. desRosiers. Zoey is 18 as of today. And she will 
graduate this program this fall and command a salary, like I 
said, somewhere from $70 to $90,000. But more impressively, the 
benefit packages that these companies in the energy industry 
offer are far and exceed what you can find in other 
opportunities.
    Mr. Fallon. Five to 7 years down the road, how much is she 
going to be making?
    Mr. desRosiers. I know of some graduates out of this 
program who are working in more supervisor managerial 
positions, commanding salaries of $120 to $130,000. So, I 
believe the opportunity to grow that range out of this program 
is significant.
    Mr. Fallon. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of 
questions. I snuck those in.
    Mr. Gusek, over the past few years, Liberty Energy has 
released a unique version of the ESG report, which highlights 
the positive impacts of U.S. energy, and what it has, not only 
in the country, but the world. Can you tell us about the report 
and why highlighting these opportunities are necessary?
    Mr. Gusek. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. I have 
here a copy, a few copies of ``Bettering Human Lives.'' We 
started 3 years ago on this initiative, recognizing that the 
conversation just was not pragmatic around energy. There was a 
continuous conversation around the negatives only, and a lack 
of recognition around all of the positives that energy brought 
to not only America but also the world. And so, we set out on 
this initiative as part of our ESG report, where we highlight 
all of the good we are doing in that space, to identify the 
true value that energy brings to our world and to try to have 
that conversation be a little more front and center.
    And so, ``Bettering Human Lives'' today talks about the 
nexus between energy, energy poverty, climate, and economics, 
and the tradeoffs that are involved in each and every one of 
those things. And we have sent out, this year's copy now, 
14,000 copies of this. It is bringing to light better 
conversations at both, I think, the Federal level, and also, 
colleges, schools, and elsewhere.
    Mr. Fallon. And just to state for the record that all 15 
Members of our Subcommittee, Republican and Democrats, were 
invited to attend this field hearing. It is unfortunate and 
sad, but also very telling, that there is not a Democrat that 
accepted this invitation. Because I think that, unfortunately, 
there are many people in the course of the political discourse 
that do not want to have a serious conversation of our energy 
needs and what that means moving forward. They are just 
appealing to, honestly, some gullible and vulnerable minds, 
particularly, at the college level that believe these climate 
myths. And so, they tend to--the President of the United States 
and many Democrats--tend to demonize folks that are in the 
energy industry. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Gusek, why those are 
absolutely untrue and why they are myths.
    Mr. Gusek. Absolutely myths. I look around at the people, 
and specifically, the 5,000 people that work at Liberty and 
what they go to do each and every day. As you appropriately 
stated in your opening remarks, energy makes the world go 
around. It has dramatically changed life. You can look back at 
thousands of years of history and what humanity looked like, 
and then all of a sudden, over the last 200 years, we have a 
hockey stick in human well-being. As you pointed out, life 
expectancy, significant reduction in poverty. These things are 
game-changing. And unfortunately, the world hears too much 
about eye-catching headlines, I guess, that fail to recognize 
exactly what energy does for us and how challenging it is to 
deliver the energy system we need today; and I think also fails 
to recognize just how big a delta there is in our world today.
    I would like to share the statistic that the lucky 1 
billion people on the face of this Earth consume 13 barrels of 
oil per person per year. The unlucky 7 billion people who have 
yet to achieve the style of life that we enjoy each and every 
day consume three barrels of oil per person per year. If they 
close that delta even by half, the significant increase in 
resource that we would need to meet that demand is nothing 
short of astounding.
    And, so, we have an immense amount of work in front of us. 
The people I work with every day are proud to get up and do 
that. And they know that what they do makes people's lives 
possible.
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Tarpley, has the United States in the last 
20 years increased or decreased our carbon footprint?
    Mr. Tarpley. Decreased.
    Mr. Fallon. By what are we talking, 5, 10, 20 percent?
    Mr. Tarpley. I think 20 percent or more.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, it is over 20 percent.
    Mr. Tarpley. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. And over the last--the same period of time, has 
China increased or decreased their carbon footprint?
    Mr. Tarpley. Dramatically increased.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, I think it is three times in that same 
timeframe.
    So, when California imposes regulation and--how does that 
help climate change? When China is firing up a new coal plant--
I do not even know, well, I have heard estimates one a week, 
one new one a week and they tripled their carbon output.
    Mr. Tarpley. Right. They are building an enormous amount of 
coal-fired power generation to supplement production of solar 
panels and other equipment which they then sell to the world 
with lower prices because it is state subsidized.
    Mr. Fallon. Let us just say that Gavin Newsom found some 
commonsense when it comes to energy and instituted policy and 
implemented policy that we have here in Texas. But in addition 
to that, China decided that they were going to follow the 
United States' lead and reduce their carbon footprint. Would 
that help the environment?
    Mr. Tarpley. Yes. If China would start building more 
natural gas fired power plants as opposed to coal, and using a 
lot of the technology that U.S. companies build to produce 
energy lower emissions, that would benefit not only China, but 
the world, but they are not choosing to do that, they are 
choosing a different path.
    Mr. Fallon. So, they like to copy and/or steal our 
technology, but they do not do it for carbon capture, do they?
    Mr. Tarpley. No, they do not; that is not their strategy.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, it is actually very telling, and just 
again, for the record, in Texas today, the price of gasoline is 
$3.26. In California it is $5.42. That is a 66 percent 
increase. It does not do anything for the environment, but it 
hurts the pocketbook of those folks in California for sure. The 
Chair now recognizes Mr. Sessions for his 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Sessions. Chairman Fallon, thank you very much. To each 
of you who are here to address us, thank you very much, not 
just factually based information, but the things which will 
allow us to be leading edge in our thinking in Congress.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, you just gave a price in Texas 
that is an average price. Waco, Texas, at the end of the Trump 
Administration, gasoline, the most expensive in town $1.94 a 
gallon is now $3.45. We know that there is a reward for this 
behavior that this Administration and Governors take, and that 
means that California has $7-a-gallon gasoline. And they will 
get rewarded, and they will pay for that. But I would like for 
each of you to take just a minute and tell me about two 
questions--that policies have consequences, and that the new 
winners are not America. Mr. Tarpley?
    Mr. Tarpley. Well, I guess--thank you for the question. I 
think the United States has a very important choice ahead of 
us. If you look at the worldwide demands for energy, they are 
increasing dramatically. As we have mentioned AI, data centers, 
all of these factors are increasing the worldwide demand for 
energy. We have a choice. We can produce that energy here in 
the United States where we get the GDP benefit, American 
workers get that benefit, and also, we can produce that energy 
with some of the lowest emissions in the world, or we can let 
somebody else do it.
    Mr. Sessions. And who are those people.
    Mr. Tarpley. Middle East.
    Mr. Sessions. Qatar.
    Mr. Tarpley. Qatar. We can let them do it, and they will 
see the GDP benefit. And it will be done under their regulatory 
scheme, and they will see the benefit. That is our choice. The 
demand for energy is not going to change. That is a constant. 
It is going to be who is going to produce it.
    Mr. Sessions. So, Saudi Arabia was the preeminent provider 
for so many years, and they became--they enriched their great 
nation. And they did. And as you still see, the royal family 
had over 400 747s just 20 years ago. They had the money.
    Gentlemen, you want to answer that question? No. 1, policy 
has consequences; and No. 2, the new winners are not America.
    Mr. Gusek. Thank you for the question. Policies certainly 
do have consequences. As I alluded to in my testimony, a lot of 
that comes in the form of costs. And we pay for that here in 
America, both as consumers, but ultimately, from a larger 
standpoint than that.
    I would point to Germany as a tremendous example of this, a 
case study that we could follow as a road we might be going 
down. They have chosen to implement policy that has ultimately 
made energy more expensive. Significantly more expensive. 
Electricity prices now are over 40 cents a kilowatt hour there.
    Of course, manufacturing cannot afford to continue when 
energy costs that much.
    Mr. Sessions. Oh, is that jobs behind those?
    Mr. Gusek. And there might be jobs that are lost as a 
consequence of that. Of course, that industry packs up and 
chooses to go elsewhere where the cost of energy is 
significantly lower. Think Southeast Asia. China is a great 
example of that. And I fear that we are headed down that same 
road unless we make some changes to our energy policy around 
that, and ensure that we keep the cost of energy low such that 
consumers win, and that industry is able to continue here. And 
certainly, if we choose not to do that, the beneficiaries will 
not be America, it will be Russia, it will be China, it will be 
Southeast Asia.
    Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Mr. desRosiers?
    Mr. desRosiers. I will just add to my colleagues' here on 
panel's discussions. There are parts of this country that have 
been blocked to building new infrastructure; pipelines. Where 
we operate in Pennsylvania, we are very close to New York 
state, and there have been a number of interstate pipelines 
that have been blocked, which is ironic when you think about 
how much natural gas we produce in this country and the 
Marcellus Shale, where companies like Coterra actually have the 
opportunity to export natural gas to places like Japan, but we 
cannot export the gas up to New England or New York to benefit 
people across our own state borders. And the reason I bring 
that up is, there are places in this country where people do 
not have a choice to use natural gas.
    Even in Pennsylvania, there are rural areas where people 
are still forced to use wood or coal or propane, and they have 
to pay a higher price for those.
    Over the last 10 years, I have had the opportunity to help 
gasify communities across rural Pennsylvania, working with 
utilities and pipeline companies to bring natural gas service 
to those areas. And I can point to multiple school districts, 
some of which are the current technology centers I work with 
here today, that invested money to connect gas to their 
facilities. And thus, have saved millions of dollars, millions 
of taxpayer dollars they did not have to pay in other energy 
sources, that they can reinvest in teachers and education and 
students.
    So, yes, policies have consequences, whether it be the 
transportation of natural gas to other parts of our own country 
or the cost to the taxpayers to educate, or live in areas that 
do not have access to natural gas.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, rarely did I hear these 
gentlemen, except in the employment that they have referred to, 
Texas. What they referred to was the Nation, consumers. And I 
would suggest to you--I wrote down some of the users of this 
energy that you have spoken of, and then we will make it closer 
to home. Jobs, homes, hospitals, airlines, and NASA. Because 
NASA is also our future.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you--I want to thank this panel and 
thank you. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes our good 
friend, Mr. Weber, for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wow. A great event. I 
appreciate you holding it. You have thrown me off my schedule 
to ask my questions here. So, I am going to shoot from the hip, 
which is what a lot of Texans do, by the way. We love the ice 
cream analogy.
    Talk about pipelines, I think, Mr. desRosiers, am I saying 
that right?
    Mr. desRosiers. Pretty close. desRosiers.
    Mr. Weber. desRosiers was my next guess. So, I think you 
said you gasified some communities in Pennsylvania. And this is 
going to be a question for all three of y'all.
    Could it be said that those states, New York or others, 
that are blocking pipelines from--I do not care if the people 
in New York do not want natural gas--but isn't that interstate 
commerce? Has there been any consideration to filing a suit to 
see if we can keep that state from blocking a pipeline?
    Mr. desRosiers. Yes, I believe there are considerations 
afoot, and there have been examples of companies to move the 
gas. I should preface by saying we are an E&P company up in 
Pennsylvania, so we are just developing the oil and natural--or 
the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. We work with companies 
like Williams or UGI, whoever it might be, to actually move the 
gas.
    In some instances, they have gone as far as the Supreme 
Court. I believe, PennEast Pipeline Project, they went as far 
as the Supreme Court and won against the state of New Jersey, 
which was blocking its ability to traverse the state of New 
Jersey to deliver natural gas to, I believe, the New York City 
and metropolitan area, but still ultimately abandoned the 
pipeline because of economic reasons and other delays.
    So, to answer your question, yes, there are efforts afoot 
by the energy industry to navigate these frivolous lawsuits and 
these stalling tactics, as my colleague on the Committee said. 
Unfortunately, sometimes it does not always work out.
    But I will say, in-state, in places like Pennsylvania and 
other areas, gas pipeline projects like the gasification ones I 
was mentioning, have been quite successful.
    Mr. Weber. Do y'all have any knowledge about any other 
suits going forward like that? Either one of y'all? Mr. 
Tarpley?
    Mr. Tarpley. Well, I think it is an incredibly important 
point is that there is natural gas being imported into the port 
of Boston because there is not enough capacity to get through 
New York state. They pay some of the highest prices in the 
country. That is incredibly unfair to people that live up 
there. There is litigation going on, and I think you bring up a 
really good point.
    Mr. Weber. Mr. Gusek?
    Mr. Gusek. The only thing I would add is, in addition to 
being imported into the port of Boston, I believe we are 
transporting natural gas into New York City by truck now rather 
than by pipeline to supply needs there, because we cannot get a 
pipeline.
    Mr. Weber. Let me follow-up on that. The Keystone Pipeline 
would have come into my district. You know, I am on the Gulf 
Coast, the upper Gulf Coast of Texas. I have seven ports, more 
than any other Member of Congress. We produce 65 percent of the 
Nation's jet fuel, 80 percent of the Nation's military grade 
fuel. OK. Huge on energy. Some of y'all will know maybe where 
Mont Belvieu is in Texas. It is like the pipeline capital of 
the world. The Keystone Pipeline--what Obama shut down, of 
course, and what Biden shut down after Trump had released a 
permit--carries 830,000 barrels a day. The average 18-wheeler--
when you think of a tanker that carries 7,000 gallons--if you 
divided 7,000 gallons by--if you considered another 42-gallon 
barrel with a 50-gallon barrel, if you divide 7,000 by 50, you 
get 120 barrels in a standard 18-wheeler tanker truck.
    Gentlemen, to move 830,000 barrels a day, it would take 
5,253 18-wheelers on the highway every day.
    Mr. Fallon. Can you say that again?
    Mr. Weber. 5,000--if you divide 830,000 barrels a day by 
50-gallon barrels, it equals 140 barrels. So, if an 18-wheeler 
carries 140 barrels to equate to 830,000 barrels a day, it 
takes 5,253 tankers on the highway every day.
    So, Mr. Gusek, when you are putting out your plans--I mean, 
your reports, we need to be aimed at our younger generation, 
our schools, and saying, look, we do care about emissions. 
Pipelines are the best way to move this. Can you actually 
include those kinds of statistics, or do you already?
    Mr. Gusek. We do include a number of statistics like that. 
I think your point is a good one. That our world involves 
tradeoffs. And we have to contemplate the pros and the cons 
each and every time. And, unfortunately, I think our 
schoolchildren are mostly presented with the cons and not the 
pros.
    Mr. Weber. OK. Let me ask--I like one-liners. These guys 
will tell you that I suck at them, but anyway. Have y'all ever 
heard the song, ``Love Makes the World Go Round''? Some of 
y'all are old enough to remember that. I will admit I am old. 
So, love does make the world go round, but energy greases the 
axle. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Van Duyne, our 
good friend from Irving.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I am 
glad that the Oversight Committee is here in Texas. I am a 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, and we have held 
numerous field hearings, including, recently, in north Texas as 
well. I think it is important for Members to get out of D.C., 
and actually hear how policies are affecting Americans. I wish 
some of our Democrat colleagues were here today to hear how 
disastrous and hear firsthand how disastrous President Biden's 
energy policies have been for the American people.
    The cost of living is being painfully driven up, making 
food, electricity, housing, and transportation incredibly 
difficult to afford. Many of the Biden Administration's energy-
related regulations will also have compounding implications for 
the future of U.S. energy production. Also, for the U.S. energy 
workforce, we were talking about jobs earlier, in the states, 
in the communities that rely upon the energy sector for 
revenue.
    To counter this, I am introducing legislation to hold the 
EPA accountable and to roll back these legislations. But I 
would like to add more here a little bit about, you know, about 
what we are trying to do. The fact is that with the EPA, they 
are out over their skis. And we have seen that with a number of 
agencies. They take advantage of the fact they have got some 
regulatory authority. The regulatory authority that they often 
add simply cripples the private sector. And for not any reason, 
it is not making the gas energy more affordable, it is not 
making it safer, it is not making it produce cleaner. It is 
just putting us at a complete disadvantage over our 
competitors, over other nations.
    And I hear this all the time in almost every meeting that I 
take, somehow these regulations are crippling people, 
especially the EPA. It is the overreach, the unnecessary 
burdens. It is particularly when it comes to permitting. And I 
would like, Mr. Gusek, if you would not mind talking a little 
bit about how potentially the EPA has burdened your business.
    Mr. Gusek. Yes, thank you for the question. Certainly, a 
couple of examples that I highlighted in my written testimony. 
The first of those being the new methane rule. And the 
challenge around that--and, certainly, this impacts our 
customers more directly than us, but we feel it is--as a 
follow-on being the service company, specifically around how 
they are going to treat existing sources. So, you can imagine, 
of course, there are a lot of people who drive older cars in 
this country by virtue of that is what they can afford. If you 
had to have that car meet the most modern emissions requirement 
of a car that was built today, the cost to move that car from 
the emissions standard it met in 1975 or 1980 to today would 
been incredibly burdensome to that person. The EPA is now 
expecting that same result when it comes to methane emissions. 
They are treating sources that--around which decisions were 
made, given the economics and rules at the time, expecting them 
to now meet the most modern emissions standards. And, of 
course, that changes the economics for the company that made 
that decision and ultimately puts them in a bit of a challenge. 
They are going further with their waste emissions charge around 
a cost of methane emissions, transitioning what was a reporting 
rule into a mechanism for assessing attacks on people, using 
what I would argue as a pretty dubious calculation for the cost 
of methane, without considering any of the benefits that come 
from all of those production facilities.
    Ms. Van Duyne. I appreciate that answer. Mr. Tarpley, 80 
percent of U.S. energy goes to non-free trade agreement 
countries. Without access to the U.S. market, many of these 
countries are forced to buy it from our adversaries.
    As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, last week, we 
had U.S. Trade Ambassador Katherine Tai, was in front of our 
Committee. Unfortunately, she chose to not answer any of my 
questions. Yes. That was not a very productive meeting. But one 
of the questions that I attempted to ask her was if the 
Administration planned to send Congress any new free trade 
agreements. With so little of LNG going to countries we 
currently have an FTA with, how helpful would an increase trade 
agenda help export more energy?
    Mr. Tarpley. Well, I think--thank you for the question. I 
think she did not want to answer the question because there is 
not a whole lot of sense to the LNG pause. It does not make a 
lot of sense for a variety of ways you look at it. I think it 
is a good point, though. If there is going to be this 
additional burden on non-FTA countries, then we should have a 
freedom trade agreement with countries that need to receive our 
LNG. And that is one way to speed up the process is to do that.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Mr. desRosiers, as we look toward 2025, we 
are beginning to look at the extension of the 2017 tax cuts. 
What would the expiration of these tax cuts do to the energy 
industry?
    Mr. desRosiers. That is a good question. The response to 
which I do not have a great answer on in this particular 
instance. I think I will defer to my colleagues on this one. 
Again, I came here prepared more to discuss about the energy 
industry workforce needs, but I will say this that----
    Ms. Van Duyne. Well,--OK. We are going to move on because 
my time is up. If you think it will be better?
    Mr. desRosiers. Yes.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Mr. Gusek, Mr. Tarpley?
    Mr. Tarpley. Well, I will just say, you know, there was an 
attempt by the Administration to increase taxes on energy 
production. Ultimately, they did not even have support within 
their own party to do that during reconciliation process. We 
were obviously concerned that they could try to do that again. 
And anything that raises the cost of producing U.S. energy just 
is going to disincentivize production here in the U.S. and put 
us at a disadvantage to our competitors abroad.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Mr. Gusek, I am over my time. Do you have a 
quick answer?
    Mr. Gusek. No.
    Ms. Van Duyne. OK. Excellent. Thank you very much, and I 
yield.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, the Chair now recognizes--we are 
saving the best for last--the Chair now recognizes our freshman 
colleague, the youngin', Judge, Colonel, Congressman Keith 
Self.
    Mr. Self. Thank you for that kind introduction, Mr. 
Chairman. My questions will primarily deal--I am not on this 
Committee, I am on the Foreign Affairs Committee--the LNG 
pause. First of all, the first question is, we are producing 
more fossil fuel that we ever have in spite of government. What 
is the lag time that we will see the impact of all of the Biden 
regulations? Because I would posit that we are seeing the 
production based on Trump rules. So, just give us a sense of 
when do you think we will see the real impact of the Biden 
rules and regulations? Mr. Tarpley?
    Mr. Tarpley. Excellent question, and we get this a lot. I 
will just start with offshore. These projects that occur 
offshore--their buildouts, 8 to 10 years. By the time you apply 
for the permit, get funding, build the project, it is 10 years. 
So, the decisions--the financial decisions that were made to 
get those projects going were made a long time ago. You know, 
it is a little bit shorter for onshore, and I am sure my 
colleagues could talk a little bit about that. But it is very 
true. The decisions that we are making today are going to 
affect our energy situation, you know, 8 years down the line.
    Mr. Self. And that is my point. Everybody needs to 
understand. Because people see we are producing more fossil 
fuel today than we ever have, and yet we talk about the Biden 
rules and regulations. The two are not simultaneous. There will 
be a lag.
    Now, we are trying--in the Foreign Affairs Committee, we 
are trying to wean Europe off of Russian energy, and yet, we 
have this LNG pause.
    Your perspective, Mr. Gusek, I will start with you, or Mr. 
Tarpley, either one. What is going to be the impact of this LNG 
pause on the energy usage in Europe?
    Mr. Gusek. Thank you for the question. Certainly, my 
thought would be that it means they ultimately go out and 
source that LNG from elsewhere. These are long-term contracts 
when countries are making decisions around where they source 
energy. This is not something that is bid out every 6 months or 
every year. And so, if there is a doubt from the European 
countries that America is going to step up and supply that LNG, 
they will go source that LNG elsewhere and more likely than 
not, that will be the Middle East, and we will be at a loss for 
that.
    Mr. Self. Now I understand that Saudi Arabia is now maxed 
out at 13 million barrels per day. And we are producing more 
than that. Is that your assessment, that we are now the leading 
producer of fossil fuel in the world and will continue to be?
    Mr. Gusek. That is my assessment, both for oil and natural 
gas.
    Mr. Self. So, if we are producing more fossil fuel than we 
ever have, has our refining capability kept up? This may be a 
Mr. Weber question. But if--can we handle all of the production 
that we are getting out of the ground? Because as everyone 
knows, we have--I think we have built one new refinery in the 
last, what, 25 years?
    Mr. Weber. What was it Obama said? ``Yes, we can.''
    Mr. Tarpley. I do not think our refining capacity has kept 
up the way it needs to. We have to export some of that product. 
We would not be able to refine it all in the United States.
    Mr. Self. Couple that with the pause, and you get my point. 
I would like--last like to talk about Alaska. We call it the 
National Petroleum Reserve. And I just want to make a few 
points. The Biden Administration now has 55 separate actions to 
cut down on mineral resources of all types being taken out of 
the ground in Alaska--55. In fact, they might have announced 
the 56th last week. We have 49 of 50 rare Earth minerals that 
are found in Alaska, and yet, we cannot mine them.
    The petroleum production, I understand, in the National 
Petroleum Reserve is the equivalent of a postage stamp on a 
football field for the entire area that we are talking about.
    Do states make a difference in your permitting, is my 
point? Does Alaska? Does Texas? Do they have an impact on your 
Federal permitting, or state or Federal permitting? Does it 
make a difference what state you are in?
    Mr. Gusek. Thank you for the question. It absolutely does 
make a difference what state you are in. We are, as an example, 
headquartered in Colorado. And I can tell you there is a full 
court press in Colorado against the production of oil and gas 
there. We had a member of the government there propose a full-
on ban on oil and gas effective--permitting ban on oil and gas 
effective 2030. That was ultimately taken down. But, yes, it 
makes a difference depending on which state you are in. Some 
very favorable, some not so much.
    Mr. Self. So, everyone up here is a Texan. I would like to 
know whether there are things that we can help you with in 
Texas. Obviously, we are a great oil and gas state, but we also 
want to maintain that status. So, if there are things that we 
can help you with, please let us know.
    And I appreciate it, Mr. Gusek, your list of obstacles. 
Because I think who is leading the fight against those 
obstacles in Congress? Is it Mr. Fallon? It must be Mr. Fallon. 
Thank you so much for the--Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. For the record, it is not Mr. Fallon.
    You know, I read somewhere once, a very wise statement. And 
it said: If you begin with certainties, you will end in doubts. 
But if you begin with doubts, you will end in certainties. And 
what I mean by that is we should have--particularly as Members 
of Congress--we should have an intellectual curiosity. In fact, 
I think our job demands that we do so.
    And it was very distressing that the very first Committee 
hearing we had for this Subcommittee, we had a brilliant man 
named Alex Epstein, who I think is genius level and an expert 
on energy and written a great book, and he was our witness. And 
before the hearing, he offered to--he gave a book--he was 
giving books out to the Committee members, and the Democrats 
would not take it. And I thought, that is very curious, because 
this is so important to our country and to the world moving 
forward. Why wouldn't you want to become more knowledgeable on 
energy? And they might not agree with his conclusion, but how 
do you even know he got to those conclusions if you do not read 
the book itself?
    And then, the Ranking Member attacked him, personally, on a 
personal level to try to destabilize, you know, the whole 
Committee hearing. And they are beginning with certainties. We 
are all beginning with doubts, wanting to learn more.
    And also, to your point, Mr. Tarpley, about truth in 
context. I can show you clips of Michael Jordan missing shots, 
thousands of shots. But if that is the only thing I show you, 
and you came from another country, and you were not familiar 
with the sport of basketball, you would think this guy is 
terrible. If the goal is to put the ball in the hoop, this guy 
cannot do that. And what I showed you--I did not show you 
anything that was untrue. I did not show you the truth in 
context. I did not give you the whole picture. And that is what 
we are saying of these universities. We are not seeing the 
whole picture.
    What I want to do real quickly, is we are going to have, 
just a few Members, who wanted to ask a second round of 
questions. So, I would like to begin that. They can start the 
clock on me.
    Mr. desRosiers, global demand is going to increase by 50 
percent over the next few decades, and we need a sustainable 
workforce. We had a Committee hearing on apprenticeships and 
skilled labor. And it was probably one of the best ones we have 
had. And we had folks that were out in the field. Can you tell 
me a little bit more about--was it, Lackawanna?
    Mr. desRosiers. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Lackawanna College and the success that they 
are having in the specialized trades, and how that program came 
about, and the impact that it has had on your company and 
others?
    Mr. desRosiers. Certainly. Lackawanna College School of 
Petroleum and Natural Gas, about 12 years old now since it has 
been established, is in an area of the country that never had 
oil and natural gas development. Western, PA; upstate New York; 
and Ohio, and West Virginia, all had legacy oil and gas, just 
like Texas and Oklahoma did. But northeast PA lacked that. So, 
the college being forward thinking established a school to meet 
the needs of the newly established Marcellus Shale industry, 
focusing on the actual trades that are working in and around 
the well sites and/or the infrastructure to move that oil and 
gas to market. And to date, that school has graduated over 368 
graduates, I believe, with a 95 percent placement rate. The 
placement----
    Mr. Fallon. Ninety-five percent? Wow.
    Mr. desRosiers. Ninety-five placement rate. There were a 
few individuals who joined the military or went on to 4-year 
degrees in engineering or other careers. So, that is why it is 
not quite 100 percent yet. But at a 10-year mark, many of those 
people are engaged in the industry, many of them promoted, many 
are specialized now. So, it is just showing the success of the 
program.
    Mr. Fallon. And can you just continue to touch on what kind 
of opportunities await these graduates.
    Mr. desRosiers. Certainly, opportunities in the energy 
industry, the power sector industry, the advanced manufacturing 
industry. We talked a little bit earlier about the skill sets 
that have changed dramatically. So, we are not just looking for 
people who can turn valves and use wrenches; we need people who 
are thinking with their mind, using electronics, using 
sophisticated techniques. And we are finding that these 
individuals are highly sought after because of their ability to 
do multiple jobs, multiple career opportunities. And I know a 
number of them that actually are now in Oklahoma--not Oklahoma, 
Ohio and West Virginia and Pittsburgh. So, the school 
originally was set up to support the local Marcellus Shale 
industry, but we are starting to see the graduates move across 
the basin and even across the country. So, there are tons of 
opportunities for these students, and the opportunities are not 
going anywhere.
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Tarpley, let us just take an extreme 
example on various issues, sometimes I think about what the 
extreme would be. So, in other words, if, let us say, the 
opposition got their way, what would happen, right? And it 
seems that the left celebrates folks that are the recipients of 
welfare. So, I always think about ``Oh, what if we are all on 
welfare?'' Then we would be, you know, some Third World country 
that did not have any infrastructure. So, let us just say that 
the Democrats in Congress get their way, and we seemingly do 
not produce any more natural gas or oil or fossil fuels in this 
country, they get their way, they win, Colorado wins, you know, 
OK? What is the practical application--what would happen there? 
So, you mentioned that there would be that lost money for our 
GDP, of course, jobs, high-paying jobs would be gone. And 
then--but this is the kicker I find interesting, not only would 
our energy then, we would have less money as a Nation, but then 
our energy costs would explode, because we would have to buy 
them, so the trade imbalance would increase even more so. But 
at the end of day, would you agree that we would also--it would 
be bad, it would be worse for the environment because we have a 
regulatory scheme, we have a strong environmental lobby. We 
have an independent judiciary. We have an expertise that has 
been built for over a century. We do it better than anyone 
else. So, the environment would suffer a result as well.
    Mr. Tarpley. It is a great question. I will follow your 
logic. Let us just assume oil and gas production stops in the 
United States, what would that mean? Well, first of all, it 
would mean that 650,000 men and women that we represent do not 
have a job, you know, so they are out on their own, the 
families that they support, they are on their own. But in 
addition to that, you have got to step back and think what does 
that really mean for the United States? Well, the reason why we 
enjoy the lifestyle that we enjoy right now, a lot of that, is 
because of energy. We have abundant energy, so that goes away. 
But one thing you can tell about Americans, we are not going to 
give up our lifestyle. So, we would still buy energy, but we 
would buy it from others, which would mean it would be more 
expensive. And just like you said, it would be produced under 
their regulatory regime.
    So, we would not control the emissions of that energy, 
somebody else would. They would see the economic benefits and 
they would decide how it would be produced. And then those 
650,000 jobs that used to be here in the United States, that 
supported those families, supported taxes, supported local 
communities, they are gone, they are somewhere else. So, the 
benefits go wherever else that is.
    Mr. Fallon. So, you are saying that a country like 
Venezuela does not have a rule of law? I mean, it gets to be 
ludicrous, right?
    Mr. Tarpley. They make the decisions on what the rule of 
law is. Here in the United States, we do. And it is going to be 
better for us if we decide how our energy is produced, under 
our laws.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, the people of this Nation have a say and 
we can trust an independent judiciary, where in China, in 
Venezuela, in Saudi Arabia, it is to the dictates of the ruling 
elite.
    Mr. Tarpley. Correct, that is right. And certainly, the 
emissions of transporting gas on a pipeline domestically within 
the United States, much lower than shipping it on a boat 
halfway across the world, so that is important to mention as 
well.
    Mr. Fallon. And this is, Mr. Gusek or Mr. Tarpley, so you 
have New York City, roughly 8 to 10 million people live there. 
Would it be better for the environment to use a pipeline to get 
their energy to them, or would it be better to get all those 
trucks that Congressman Weber was talking about? Mr. Gusek, you 
want to take that one?
    Mr. Gusek. Certainly, I think the answer is pretty obvious 
on that--the pipeline is well demonstrated as the safest, 
lowest emissions way to transport hydrocarbons.
    Mr. Fallon. It would dramatically reduce our carbon 
footprint if we did that.
    Mr. Gusek. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. And who fights that? What political party would 
fight that?
    Mr. Gusek. We know of only one.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, thank you.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Sessions for another 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have two 
questions. One, Mr. Tarpley first, and then Mr. desRosiers. The 
first question is directly related to the jobs that you are 
speaking about.
    In 2008, I visited Butler, Pennsylvania, and they became 
the epicenter in Pennsylvania of the coal-fired rules that 
President Obama put on them, that by and large, said, you 
cannot grow any more jobs, we cannot have anybody move here. 
And yet, you have told a story of the industry removing itself 
to where it provided new technology, new jobs, new 
opportunities. There would be opportunities not just in Texas 
that are being hurt now, but in other places that could take 
advantage of technology.
    Mr. Tarpley. Great question. Our workforce, as I mentioned, 
650,000 nationwide. We are in all 50 states. It is changing. 
There are less, you know, folks working on traditional, like, 
you would imagine on a rig, they are getting into things like 
AI, high-technology. More folks are working maybe offsite 
monitoring the production, you know, from an offsite location. 
And they are getting technical training that you would not 
think of in a traditional oil field, you know, history.
    So, the workforce is changing. And I think it will continue 
to grow. The technology that this sector is creating is 
transforming the way we produce oil and gas. And that is going 
to continue, that innovation is continuing year by year.
    Mr. Sessions. So now, to add to that, and I think the 
Administration sees this, the next generation is cleaner, does 
have jobs, is using their education, is leading edge, becoming 
the world leaders.
    Yesterday on Earth Day, President Biden called on his young 
people--I was going to refer to them as comrades--across 
America to sign up for the American Climate Corps, a Green New 
Deal-style program that will use taxpayer dollars to pay for 
environmentalist jobs where people who have been replaced in 
these areas would then come and be a voice against the 
commonsense that we are doing. Do you have an idea about that? 
Are you aware of this and what that would actually do using 
taxpayer dollars to fund these people who are out of work to 
fight the industry that you are trying to clean the world with?
    Mr. desRosiers. It seems counterintuitive as we, as a 
Nation, continue to need more oil and natural gas. Especially 
if we are trying to transition into the hydrogen economy or 
whatever that might look like. Because again, natural gas, is a 
major feedstock of the hydrogen economy. We are finding in 
places like rural America, New Mexico, West Texas, it is 
difficult to get people to relocate there and take the jobs 
that we have available now, right? So, this idea that we are 
going to somehow supplement or fund other people to attack our 
industry or deminimize our industry does not make sense when we 
need the oil and natural gas.
    I think the number is about 6,000 products every day that 
are made from oil and natural gas, not counting the 
electricity, not counting the fuels, not counting everything 
else that we need regularly. So, we need more people in our 
industry. We need to get them to the areas to work, where the 
jobs are open. And we need to, you know, stop vilifying this 
industry. Especially when--and I do not mean to ramble on here, 
but there is this belief, when you look at solar and wind or 
power generation or whatever it might be, we are using all the 
same skill sets across the board. So, we need to start looking 
at this from the standpoint of advanced manufacturing. We need 
to look at this from an idea that people want to be in these 
family sustaining careers. And we do have the opportunities and 
the pathways to get them into these careers.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Gusek, you represent a company that 
employs people, is concerned about them. But you also know that 
they supply money to states that operate schools, that operate 
prisons, that operate highways, that operate all these other 
things that count on people working, people having jobs, 
avoiding unemployment, avoiding the misery of not having a job, 
and all those things that come with it. Can you summarize this 
for us about the real impact of what this delay will have, 
snapshot now?
    Mr. Gusek. That is a very good question. The impact would 
be significant. While we work in the oil basins, which 
primarily are centered in a handful of states, our employees 
come from across 42 different states. They travel to work for 
2-weeks-on, 2-weeks-off shift. As we have already heard, 
salaries of $80,000 to maybe $150,000 a year with a high school 
degree and a commercial driver's license, working 26 weeks of 
the year, allowing them to spend 26 weeks a year with their 
family and still be valuable contributors to the local economy 
as taxpayers, but also as participants in that community.
    That type of job is irreplaceable. I do not know of another 
industry that offers that kind of well-being to people from 
across the country with a high school education.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I believe we should all run to 
the future. And I think that as Buzz Lightyear, the Great 
American philosopher, said years ago, from here to infinity and 
beyond. But if we head the way the Democratic party wants us 
to, we will just be unemployed, sitting in the corner, sucking 
our thumb, waiting for Uncle Sam to provide us money. That is 
not, in my opinion, a good future for the country.
    I want to thank each of our panelists. I think they were 
superb. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes our good friend, Mr. Weber, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Alex Epstein, the name of his book, by the way, you all 
probably know it is The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. That is a 
pretty popular book. And I am not surprised that when he passed 
it out in you all's Committee that the Democrats would not take 
it.
    There was another gentleman named Robert Bryce who wrote a 
book called Power Hungry. They both make the moral case that 
the Third World countries, they are using animal dung, they are 
using wood chips, whatever they can to stay heated in the 
wintertime. And many of them die from asphyxiation from the 
animal dung or the diseases it causes, so if you all wanted 
that book.
    I do want to say, by the way, you, I think, Mr. Gusek, had 
mentioned ESG in some of your remarks. And just so we can all 
be on the same page for those of you who may not know, ESG, 
stands for extra stupid government, OK? Just so you all know 
that.
    Mr. Gusek, one other thing I wanted to say, I was in the 
state legislature for 4 years before I got demoted to Congress. 
And I was on the environmental reg committee, and we went up to 
D.C. for an environment and energy conference. And the Under 
Secretary for the EPA was--I forget her name, I never dreamed I 
was going to run for Congress at that point--but she was making 
the point about WOTUS, Waters of the USA, and methane from 
cattle and from, you know, horses and that kind of stuff, 
livestock. And she said they had calculated, I forget what it 
was, 2,500, 3,500 farms and ranches in the whole United States, 
and they had calculated it, it would yield a $26 million income 
stream. They had calculated how much money the government could 
get out of that, they literally had. It is stupid what they are 
doing. That is my rant for today.
    Mr. Gusek, in my area of southeast Texas, it feels like 
every university, college, trade school, 2-year school, and 
even high schools are working day in and day out to uplift the 
very skills that we all know are needed, and to upscale our 
workforce to better face the challenge of the industry's 
future. I do not know if you all are familiar with Lamar 
University in that part of the state, it is in the Texas State 
University system. Pete and Pat, you all may also--did we lose 
the gentlelady? No, there she is, I can see her.
    But they are going to build what is called an advanced 
terminal and methane emission training facility, given the fact 
that that is one of the requests we turned in for money for 
them so that they could actually train their workforce. It 
would actually simulate the complex into multicomponent systems 
that make up modern ports, because as I said earlier, we have 
seven ports. The ATMET, as it is called, would be housed in 
Port Arthur and would provide critical opportunities for 
workers to learn those skills required, you are talking about 
it, Mr. desRosiers, to man a cutting-edge LNG export facility. 
I have two current LNG export facilities in my district now, 
Freeport LNG and Golden Pass LNG. Cheniere Energy is right 
across the river in Louisiana. And we also have Port Arthur LNG 
which is rearing up. It has been through phase 1. Had to put it 
on pause because of the pause the President put on for phase 2.
    So, your company, it sounds like, has learned to leverage 
workforce programs in how to skill up your employees. And based 
on what he was saying, that is something we all ought to be 
doing.
    So, I am going to go to you very quickly, Mr. Tarpley. So, 
what do you see your companies that you represent participating 
in like programs? With schools and colleges, we have got to 
be--I mean, junior high, high school up.
    Mr. Tarpley. Yes, that is a great question. Thank you for 
that. Our companies, especially in the post COVID, we are 
having a lot of trouble finding workers. It has improved a 
little bit, you know, in the past years, but there is still a 
shortage. And there is a shortage for workers that are trained 
in these high-technology areas, that the location of where a 
lot of this oil and gas production and manufacturing goes on is 
adjacent to areas of high unemployment where there are people 
that need jobs. You have got to make that connection.
    These workforce training programs are exactly how to do it. 
Train these folks in their local communities and let them know 
that there are jobs that are available where they can remain in 
their communities. That is the way to----
    Mr. Weber. Do you all have a training system with the 
companies you represent? Do you all share those ideas?
    Mr. Tarpley. We do. We have an HR committee that shares 
those best practices amongst all our companies.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you.
    Mr. Gusek?
    Mr. Gusek. I only wanted to add one comment to that. 
Certainly, as you have heard, we are losing people in that--
petroleum engineering grads is a great example. I think 
enrollment or graduate from undergrad level now down 75 percent 
from historic highs in 2017, 2018 timeframe.
    What we need is, we need junior high students, high school 
students to hear a message that oil and gas is going to be here 
for decades to come. It is difficult to attract people to our 
industry when they are being told oil and gas is done in 10 
years. That does not look like a career to them and so they 
need to hear a different message.
    Mr. Weber. Well, I hope you all are moving throughout your 
communities.
    By the way, one of the state reps from Colorado when we 
were in D.C. listening to the Under Secretary of the EPA, when 
she said sea level change was going to be really bad in the 
next 50 years--you cannot make this stuff up, one of state reps 
in Colorado said--we walked out of that room and he said to me, 
``man, we in Colorado, we are concerned about that sea level 
rise.'' And I am thinking, I am on the Gulf Coast at 26 feet 
above sea level and he is probably at what, 1,500 feet and up? 
ESG is crazy.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, thank you. I thought this was a great 
hearing. And I want to thank my colleagues and certainly the 
witnesses and everyone else for attending.
    To your point about the sea level rises. I think that is 
interesting that Barack Obama bought, I think, a $15 million, 
$20 million property on Martha's Vineyard at sea level. So, he 
does not seem to be too concerned about sea levels rising at 
zero, or 1 to 2 feet. And also, when Joe Biden goes to 
Delaware, he is not up in the Delaware mountains. I do not 
think there is any such thing. He is at sea level at his beach 
house. So, they do not seem overly concerned about it.
    The bottom line is energy security is national security. 
And as so many of the witnesses pointed out, it is economic 
security. It underwrites really our lifestyle, the comfort that 
we have been accustomed to, our prosperity, our health. If you 
have a serious disease, without fossil fuels, you are in big 
trouble. Something as simple as the IV bag, made from fossil 
fuels. We are in a propaganda war. And you hear terms like 
``settled science,'' which is intended to muffle anyone that 
does not toe the party line. It also wants to discourage the 
greatest asset we have as human beings, which is intellectual 
curiosity.
    And it is getting to the point of cult-like--it is a cult-
like movement. Insomuch as when we saw defunding of the police, 
the left was turning good guys into bad guys, and calling the 
bad guys good guys. And I think we are in danger of doing that 
here with energy. We have seen it.
    What we have also heard from these witnesses is the 
absolute crucial nature of the American energy sector. 
Production costs, if they are continuing to rise and new 
regulations continue to enter growth, the U.S. energy workforce 
is not going to be sustained to meet that future need of 50 
percent global. We have got to thank the hardworking men and 
women in the energy sector. And this workforce needs to 
continue, as you all know, to evolve. And we need that highly 
skilled labor or we are doomed. The Texas miracle that we have 
enjoyed here, I was in the legislature, right after Randy was 
demoted, for 8 years, and we have a Texas miracle, but if we do 
not have an educated workforce, that is not going to continue. 
We need to embrace innovation as well. And what a good friend, 
Congressman Self, was mentioning is when you can use an analogy 
to a football field and a postage stamp, that is what people 
can grasp. And they go, ``wait a minute, if it's just that tiny 
of a piece, why wouldn't we try to exploit that for our 
Nation's benefit?''
    But the Biden Administration they continue to declare war 
and demonize and cheerlead it. We hear constant lies. I have 
heard them in this Committee hearing, not this particular one, 
but in ones we have had in the past related to energy where we 
had a witness that attested that renewable energy production is 
cheaper than fossil fuels. Yes, it is cheaper when it is 
subsidized. And he said, no, no. If his statement was true, 
then there would be no need for fossil fuels because the wind 
and solar would undercut you all, but that is not true. But 
that is what they--I think he really believed it, which was 
that he was the Democrat's expert witness. That is frightening. 
It is chilling, quite frankly.
    And the LNG pause, the argument was made that, we had that 
hearing last week, that that is making domestic national gas 
cheaper. And Mr. Tarpley pointed out that is absolutely not 
true considering over the 8 years, a far more expansive sample 
size in 3 months, 8 years, it has not happened. So, we need to 
be armed by the experts to talk about not their truth, but the 
truth. That is why we want to have hearings like this so we can 
get smarter and we can combat, because again, this is a 
propaganda war for the hearts and minds at the end of the day. 
And fossil fuels have allowed us to achieve so much in this 
country. And it is safer for the environment for us to produce 
it here than anywhere else in the world.
    That is another inconvenient truth, as the left would say. 
So, I think the stakes are far too high for us to be 
complacent. And we need to continue to be the energy superpower 
that we are. And we need to expose the lies of the Biden 
Administration and congressional Democrats.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, I 
want to thank everybody that attended, certainly my colleagues 
for taking the time on a district workweek.
    In closing, and without objection, all Members will have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials, and to 
submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which 
will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    If there is no further business, and without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]