[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 152 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8121-S8122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the development of natural gas in the U.S. 
is vital to our energy security, environment, and economy. As we 
continue to craft policies affecting the development of natural gas, we 
must ensure participants in policy crafting are above reproach.
  U.S. natural gas supplies are abundant and will increase our Nation's 
energy security. There is an estimated 2,000 trillion cubic feet of 
U.S. natural gas reserves found in shale gas plays across the U.S. As 
countries around the world move aggressively to secure oil resources, 
U.S. natural gas reserves can play an important role in enhancing our 
energy security.
  The significant U.S. reserves of natural gas provide the opportunity 
to reshape our energy future. A recent study by the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, MIT, states that natural gas will provide an 
increasing share of America's energy needs over the next several 
decades, doubling its share of the energy market from 20 percent today 
to 40 percent.
  The increase in our natural gas reserves is creating economic 
opportunities for American workers and communities around the country. 
In 2008, natural gas companies directly employed roughly 622,000 
Americans and indirectly sustained almost 2.2 million additional jobs. 
The industry contributed $385 billion to our Nation's economy in 2008 
alone. Representing Oklahoma, I recognize the benefits of the natural 
gas industry all too well. One in seven jobs in Oklahoma is directly or 
indirectly supported by the energy industry. According to the U.S. 
Energy Information Administration, Oklahoma ranks third in the country 
in natural gas production.
  One of the key techniques for natural gas production is hydraulic 
fracturing. I have spoken on this floor many times over the past 2 
years about the value of this production method. Hydraulic fracturing, 
coupled with horizontal drilling, has not only aided in the production 
of both oil and natural gas from more than a million wells over the 
past 60 years, production from thousands of wells is dependent on 
hydraulic fracturing. First used in 1947, hydraulic fracturing allows 
previously inaccessible reserves of natural gas to be recovered with a 
relatively small footprint. A mixture of pressurized water, sand and 
additives--less than 1 percent of the overall mixture--is used to 
create small fissures in the shale rock which releases the natural gas, 
allowing it to flow up the wellbore to be collected.
  As natural gas development assumes a more prominent role in our 
Nation's energy supply, some Members of Congress and the administration 
are looking at ways to have the federal government regulate the natural 
gas industry. Natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing is 
regulated effectively at the State level. Legislation has been 
introduced in Congress, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of 
Chemicals Act of 2009, FRAC Act, to impose new Federal regulations on 
hydraulic fracturing which would only add unnecessary regulations on 
this vital industry.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is considering how to 
construct its study of fracking, which was ordered last year by 
Congress after the agency's 2004 study, that declared the technology 
safe, was criticized by some groups as being as flawed. The EPA's 
Science Advisory Board recently released a list of candidates for its 
panel to assist with the review of its Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan. 
This panel is to provide technical and scientific advice to the EPA as 
it crafts the study plan.
  This is a great practice by the EPA to seek advice from knowledgeable 
experts and sound science to develop policy. These panel members must 
be above reproach. Sadly, several of these candidates have a troubled 
history, including questions about expert scientific credentials, 
error-laden research on the issue of hydraulic fracturing, and 
questions of objectivity based on previous research and statements 
regarding fracking.
  One nominee is an environmental activist who also happens to be a 
scientist. A chemist by trade, she consults and advocates against 
various industries, including the petrochemical and natural gas 
industries. Her activist roots color her professional judgments. In 
fact, her expert testimony was once excluded from trial. If her so-
called expert judgment was inadequate for a court of law, how can it be 
adequate for our nation's top environmental agency?
  Another nominee issued a draft report concluding that natural gas 
production specifically using hydraulic fracturing negates the clean 
burning attributes of natural gas. However, the report contained so 
many errors that the author was forced to withdraw it shortly after it 
was released.
  It is clear that these nominees are simply opposed to natural gas 
development and have already rendered a judgment regarding hydraulic 
fracturing, which raises serious questions about their ability to 
objectively assess scientific data on this issue and remain impartial. 
Clearly, they are not impartial.
  But more troubling are the questions raised about their scientific 
credentials and quality of their academic research. Having testimony 
thrown out by a court of law and being forced to withdraw research on 
this subject because of errors should disqualify an individual from 
serving on the Agency's panel of advisors.
  EPA record for accepting comments on the nominees to assist the 
Science Advisory Board will soon close. I know that the EPA has 
received a wide variety of comments, and I urge the EPA Administrator 
and the Science Advisory Board to carefully consider these comments so 
that this study may be above reproach and not be affected by anti-
natural gas political agendas.

[[Page S8122]]



                          ____________________