My career as a political scientist. And this has been amongst if not the most satisfying intellectually to work with john and work with all the authors who are all crs analysts and experts who in addition to their regular duties i want to emphasize that in addition to answering the requests that come in from members of congress and their staffs, in addition to that sat down and found the time oftentimes outside of regular work hours on the weekends and in the evenings to write these very insightful chapters. And i think its im very proud to be part of the institution of the Congressional Research service at the library of congress, also a terrific institution. And were very happy every day coming to work to help serve members of congress and with the goal of an informed national legislature. So as long as were we continue to be funded, as long as Congress Wants us to be there and help them, well keep showing up for work. And producing hopefully more documents like the one we produced for the evolving congress. Great. Well, thank you all. And thank you to the audience for being here. [ applause ] today marks the 70th anniversary of the formal surrender of japan on the uss missouri ending world war ii in the pacific theater. Well show an institute for the study of strategy and politics conference on the end of the pacific war. Starting at 8 00 p. M. American strategy in the asia pacific end game with james perry, historian and aerospace analyst. At 9 00 p. M. Stalins strategy for ending the pacific war with david glance, former Army War College professor. And at 10 00 u. S. , soviet and japanese plans for the invasion and defense of northern japan with u. S. Army command and general staff college. The cspan cities tour visits literary and Historic Sites across the nation to hear from local historians, authors and civic leaders. You can hear them every other weekend on cspan2s book tv and on American History tv on cspan3. And this month with congress on its summer recess the cities tour is on cspan every day at 6 00 p. M. Eastern. Today we head to wheeling, West Virginia to travel the national road, the first major highway built by the federal government. Well take a look at civil war battle flags and recount senator Joe Mccarthys red baiting enemies within reach speech. Next, a hearing on the benefits of and concerns about hydraulic fracturing or fracking, the process of injecting water, sand and chemicals into rock deposits deep underground to release natural gas. The House Science Committee held the hearing in april. The committee on science base and technology will come to order. Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. Welcome to todays hearing on the Science Behind hydraulic fracturing. Ill recognize myself and then Ranking Member. The combination called fracking is arguably one of the most significant Technological Advancements in the history of the oil and gas industry. This technological breakthrough has helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs, been the catalyst for a surging Manufacturing Sector and enabled our nation to become more energy independent. But as with any type of Technological Progress from oil and Gas Development, any risk must be evaluated carefully by the use of verifiable science. Unfortunately, opponents of hydraulic fracturing make claims based on the the Environmental Protection agency has used this agendadriven approach to wrongly assert a connection between hydraulic fracturing and ground water contamination. For example, in parker county, texas, the epa issued an unprecedented order that halted Natural Gas Development only to have the Texas Railroad commission investigate and find the epa was wrong. In wyoming the epa released a draft report that claimed hydraulic fracturing caused water contamination, however it was later discovered that the report had several glaring weaknesses. Among them the report failed to take into account naturally occurring natural gas. It was not Peer Reviewed. It involved poor sampling and lacked data transparency. The epa was forced to abandon its investigation. Then in pennsylvania the epa reinitiated an investigation into groundwater contamination after it had first agreed there was no contamination. Seven months later the epa indicated that oil and Gas Development was not the cause of the contamination. It appears that the decision to reinitiate the investigation was based on political pressure from activists who oppose hydraulic fracturing. It is incredible given their track record that the epa is now working on another large study to suggest a causal connection between high drydraulic fracturd groundwater contamination. Their refusal to accept good science knows no bounds. Their political aswren da drives their science agenda. Perhaps most troubling is that epa study of fracking does not include a Risk Assessment in their analysis. This means the study will be focused on possible problems with hydraulic fracturing rather than what is likely or probable. The mere possibility that something may occur will do little to help regulators evaluate the overall process. The science overwhelmingly shows that hydraulic fracturing can be done in environmentally safe manner. Even the administration agrees and has repeatedly said that potential risk can be avoided through modern technologies based on sound science. President obama has stated that, quote, we should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer, end quote. And that the natural gas boom made possible by hydraulic fracturing has led to, quote, Greater Energy independence and we need to encourage that, end quote. In fact, even the Current Administration of the epa said, quote, theres nothing inhere inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering practices cant establish, end quote. Then why does the epa repeatedly and publicly begin with the premise that hydraulic fracturing causing water contamination only to be forced to retract after claims are subjected to scientific scrutiny . Meanwhile the allegations make headlines, the retractions are footnotes. The epas bias against fracking is the opposite of the accepted scientific method. Hydraulic fracturing is a Proven Safe Technology that has made america an energy leader. Yet theres still those that believe regardless of the science the process should be banned. Activists have spread misinformation about the science in an attempt to convince americans that theres no way fracking can be done safely. The administration relies on questionable studies and reports theyre paid for, Peer Reviewed by and disseminated by a network of environmentalists with an ideological agenda. Using scare tactics to impede the development of oil and gas will cost our communities jobs, our states revenue and will force us to increase our dependence on foreign oil. Safe domestic natural Gas Production has benefitted the environment, the economy and the hard working families who now enjoy reduced energy costs. That concludes my Opening Statement. And the Ranking Member the gentlewoman from texas miss johnson is recognized for her Opening Statement. Thank you very much. Let me thank our witnesses for being present. I am from texas. And i served with your father, i believe, in the texas house. He was there when i got there and i think hes still there. And i got there in 73. I am pleased that the oil and gas industry has done so well, and most especially during the Obama Administrations tenure. I am also a nurse by training, and im sensitive to the need to protect Public Health and environment even as we develop new fossil fuels resources. This hearing is advertised as being about the science of fracking, but the majoritys witness consistent of state economic regulation and Development Officials representative of a firm that was set up to run Public Relations for the fracking industry and a scientist paid by one of the largest fracking firms in the country. That does not sound like a promising panel to examine the scientific questions. Looking at the majoritys hearing materials and testimony it is clear that this is a hearing designed to give a platform for the fracking industry to attack those who question the safety of practices within the industry. In particular there is a focus on undermining local communities that are considering or perhaps have adopted limits or bans on fracking. More than 500 local communities including some in my home state of texas have raised concerns about the practice of fracking and have considered our past bans to restrict fracking activities. These are our constituents dealing with real issues, real environmental and Public Health implications. We should not belittle or diminish their concerns or simply dismiss them as unsophisticated. Instead, im going to suggest that the answer to calming the fears of local communities is not to be found in attacking their motives or information but through more transparency by the industry and more effective regulation by states and the federal government. People have concerns about the fracking industry because they can see it is largely unchecked. For example, in the state of colorado with over 52,000 active fracking wells the state has only 40 inspectors. West virginia has 56,000 active wells and as of 2011 just 20 inspectors. Pollution of Drinking Water whether from fracking or flawed construction of the well are from surface waste from the site moving into aqua fers has occurred at least 248 times between 2008 and 2014 in pennsylvania. We actually do not know how many incidences in total there have been because the state did not start collecting statistics on incidences until 2014. If we had more transparency, more accountability and more oversight, local communities would be able to make wellinformed choices. However, building an oversight hearing around Public Relations campaigns to dismiss those concerns of local communities not only does a disservice to members of this committee, it also does nothing to increase the trust of the fracking industry and those communities. In closing, i would argue that it is not some hypocritical Smear Campaign by the federal government, but rather repeated attacks against epa and campaigns of doubt waged by opaque industry that have stoked mistrust among the american people. This hearing is likely to have the unintended consequence of further stoking mistrust among the american people. Justice louis brandise said sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant. I cant agree more. It is time that our local communities are provided with transparent information from industry to better understand the environmental and Public Health risk proposed by hydraulic fracturing activities. Mr. Chairman, i think the problem is not that local communities given Bad Information from activists. It is that local communities cannot get Accurate Information about the environmental and Health Impacts resulting from oil and Natural Gas Development using high volume fracking techniques. Now, before i yield back, i want to attach to my statement two studies. Excuse me. The malone and other study and the nrdc issue paper on fracking spills. And i ask unanimous consent to attach those. Without objection so ordered. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you, miss johnson. Let me introduce our witnesses today. Our first witness miss christi craddick. Since she began her role in 2012 she has pushed to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the industry helping to drive the States Economic success. Prior to her tenure at the Texas Railroad commission miss craddick had a career as an attorney specializing in gas, regulation and environmental policy. She earned both bachelor degree and doctorate of jurisprudence from austin. The department of Earth Sciences at Syracuse University. Dr. Siegel kushtly teaches ground Water Movement and fate of contaminants in groundwater. Prior to joining Syracuse University dr. Seeger woiegel w the minnesota district. Among many other accomplishments dr. Siegel has served as a member on numerous panels as National Academy of science and chair of the National Research council and water board. Received his bachelor degree in geology from the university of rhode island, master in geology from Pennsylvania State university and doctorate in hydrogeology from the university of minnesota. Our third witness, mr. Simon lomax is the western director of energy and depth research, education and Public Outreach program of the independent Petroleum Association of america. Before working at energy in depth mr. Lomax spent 15 years working in journalism as the editorial director of the energy now tv show and energy and environmental reporter at Bloomberg News and a Senior Editor at argis media inc. Holds a bachelor from the queens in brisbane, australia. Our final witness mr. L. G. Hosting is a strategic planner. Prior to joining the Environmental Defense fund he was a Senior Adviser to the obama president ial campaign on energy and environmental policy matters and codirector of the department of Energy President ial transition team. Among many other roles mr. Holstein has held position of assistant secretary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and chief of staff of the u. S. Department of energy. We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward to your testimony. And well begin with miss craddick. Good morning. Chairman smith, Ranking Member johnson, members of the committee, my name is Chris Christi craddick. This is an important issue with the direct impact on texas today as well as other states throughout the u. S. Affecting thousands of jobs across the country and our nations economy. Since hydraulic fracturing has become a widely used practice, it has been surrounded by misinformation propagated by groups more interested in prohibiting the technique than understanding the complex science of safe and responsible minerals extraction. Setting the hyperbole aside reveals a simple truth, there are no confirmed instances of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing in texas with proper oversight hydraulic fracturing is safe. The thriving Energy Sector in texas is due in large part to the diligence of the Railroad Commission which is responsible for ensuring the safety of oil and Gas Production statewide through a rigorous process of permitting, monitoring and inspecting operations. For 90 years the commission has served as the states primary regulator of the oil and gas industry and has recognized as a regulatory leader throughout the world. Commission rules and actions grounded in science and fact and combined with almost a century of oil and gas regulatory experience allow us to protect the public and our Natural Resources well. The difference in texas is found in the commissions mission statement, to serve texas by our stew wardship of Natural Resources and the environment, our concern for personal and Community Safety and support of enhanced development and Economic Vitality for the benefit of all texans. Sensible businessminded regulation with a High Standard for environmental safety allows the oil and gas industry to flourish. Every aspect of oil and Gas Development is highly regulated. As industry adheres to regulation at the local, state and federal levels, while it is in everyones best interest the Energy Industry is successful, that is only the case if it operates responsibly and in full compliance with our laws or the commission will not hesitate to revoke the ability to do business in texas. Included in the Railroad Commissions regulatory responsibility is the well completion technique known as hydraulic fracturing. For more than 60 years hydraulic fracturing has been used safely and successfully in over 1 million wells around the world retrieving more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The technique involves the process of extracting oil and gas reserves from shell rock layers deep within the earths crust that were once unreachable through the use of conventional drilling. This precise scientific process combined with horizontal drilling allows for the injection of highly pressurized fluids into shell areas. This creates new channels in the rock from which oil and gas are extracted at higher rates. Whatever evolving Industry Technology and increase production comes a large regulatory workload. Although texas regulatory standards have been in place for almost 100 years, the Current Energy growth has presented a real opportunity for states to benefit from the economic value of the responsible regulation of energy development. In an effort to bolster our regulations during this time of considerable growth, the commission has worked with stake holders to ensure that the rules reflect industrys best practices as Groundwater Protection remains a key objective to the commission. Major rules have focused on this principle charge. A keystone to the commissions regulatory success is administrative code section 3. 13 or statewide rule 13 lays the ground work for the safety of texas water. Statewide rule 13 evaluates well integrity, casing, seaming, control and completion requirements best industry practices. In 2013 the most stringent case in the country went into effect on january 1st of 2014. In addition to statewide rule 13 before the Commission Issues a drilling permit the agencys groundwater advisory unit will send an applicant a letter indicating the base of usable quality water indicating the level at which the operator must place a cement casing to protect water sources. Well bore construction and design is highly regulated and technically robust. Groundwater is permanently protected by several layers of steel casing and cement as well as thousands of feet of rock. As a result well failure is extremely rare in texas. While economic gains are meaningless without the safety of our communities and resources, hydraulic fracturing bans hurt texas in the Energy Sector as a whole. Outside interests are taking the legitimate concerns of citizens and influencing them in an attempt to end fossil fuel production. Many of the concerns of environmental groups raised are factually incorrect or unsubstantiated. Without clearly defined regulatory roles for cities, oil and Gas Development and its ability to anchor the texas economy is in jeopardy. In texas bans in industry are present day concern. The Railroad Commission though is required by delegated authority to continue issuing oil and gas permits. Over the years though oil and Gas Energy Companies have extracted oil and gas deposits from deep under ground. Their operations have often approached city boundaries. In those instances success is found when the industry, the commission and local authorities Work Together to implement sensible guidelines. This collaboration will disappear in communities where hydraulic fracturing is banned. Without the certainty of fair regulation, businesses will be far less willing to risk their capital and as a result those cities will lose jobs, tax revenue and business development. The industry is the greatest economic contributor in texas and a prime driver in the vitality of the u. S. Economy. In a world where misinformation and sensationalism too often drive the public in discourse, lets embrace the truth, adopt reasonable approaches to the challenges we face and share the prosperity that follows. Thank you for having me this morning. Ill be glad to answer any questions. Thank you, chairman craddick and dr. Siegel. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me . Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me here. I present testimony on whether hydraulic fracturing of rocks for oil and Gas Production can other than in the very rare local situation degrade the quality of groundwater found in shallow aquifers. I offer this testimony entirely on my own behalf. Now, the controversy over fracking ranges from concerns over climate disruption to worries about potential Lifestyle Changes and economic inequities. But one issue commonly raised is whether natural gas escaping from gas wells can contaminate Drinking Water aquifers, a concern highlighted by two scientific papers published by scientists from Duke University in 2011 and 2012. In these papers the researchers reported the results of their sampling while 141 Domestic Water wells in northeastern pennsylvania and adjacent new york for methane and other substances. They showed a graph indicating higher concentrations of dissolved natural gas occurs in water wells closer to gas wells. And they said their results, quote, suggest important environmental risks accompany shell Gas Exploration worldwide. When i read these papers then i felt that 141 samples were too few to make such a sweeping conclusion. And i noticed that a cluster of about a dozen water wells had been sampled near demic, pennsylvania, where two gas wells had notably failed and had produced some natural gas contamination, if not anything else. Common sense tells me that more natural gas occurs in Drinking Water near knownfailed wells, as rare as they might be, much as there has to be more smoke near known burning buildings. In essence the duke sampling seems statistically bias to me and i didnt think they could say much about the entire population of water wells let alone anything about shell Gas Exploration worldwide from such a small data set and that style of sampling. After these papers were published Chesapeake Energy corporation asked me if id be interested in assisting them to do a basic science study on an enormous Water Quality data set they had collected in pennsylvania and adjacent states. This data set had over 34,000 individual samples of groundwater. Its the largest data set ive ever seen of my kind for groundwater analyses. You know, people in science talk about whats a representative sample when we want to figure out contamination. The number of samples in chesapeakes data remarkably captures the true population in parts of pennsylvania. So i agreed to help them. And we published our first paper from this project on march 12th of this year in Environmental Science and technology. Before i talk about our results i want to address some issues that the press has recently brought up. Immediately after we published our paper certain media challenged whether my coauthors and i had properly divulged our association and payment by Chesapeake Energy corporation. Please keep in mind during the peer review process neither our papers reviewers, the associate editor handling the paper nor the chief editor found fault with our disclosure. And they accepted our paper on march 12th of this year. Now, ive edited many journals myself and i understand disclosure, but a response to media pressures the journal prudently as i would have done asked my colleagues and me to expand our disclosure. We did so promptly on april 16th a revised manuscript was rec reseptembresep reaccepted. How the homeowners water was sampled, used a widely recommended method they use a widely recommended method by the aef and others for decades so there is really no issue on that. What about our results . We could not repeat dukes results. We could not repeat dukes results. You about instead of using 141 samples, we used 11309 samples in an area yeah of 661 gas wells. We found high and low concentrations of natural gas close and far from Oil Gas Wells with no discernible pattern. Dissolved math methane does not inherently effect the well. We used Robust Methods just to confirm it. Now why couldnt we reproduce duke results. I think they had insufficient enough of samples to accurately reflect in the sample and that is what i reported in the paper. Understand i know that gas wells can fail but the pennsylvania experience shows the situations happen rarely, much less than 1 of the time. And our data support these type of low incident rates. But most of all i would argue that our study points to the necessity of not jumping to conclusions about contamination of water by anything without getting adequate numbers of samples or have a Sample Program designed to truly characterize the problem. Thank you very much. Thank you, dr. Siegel. And mr. Lomax. Chairman smith, Ranking Member johnson, distinguished members of the committee, good morning and thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is simon lomax and im here representing energy in depth, an energy and Outreach Program of the independent pet rollum association of america. We represent Service Producers who develop 95 of the nations oil and gas wells. Today energy in depth is releasing a paper called a look inside new yorks antifracking echo chamber. It deals with the unprecedented decision of new York Governor Andrew Cuomo to effectively ban mar sellous shale for hydraulic fracking or fracking for short. I say unprecedented because new york is the first state with shell Gas Resources to ban fracking. The governors decision was completely at odds with earlier findings from state and federal environmental regulators that hydraulic fracturing has been used safely in the United States for decades. In fact, Governor Cuomos decision overturned two earlier findings from state environmental regulators in new york itself. In 2009 and 2011. That hydraulic fracturing in the marcelous shale could move forward safely under stringent regulations. The reaction to the new york ban has been telling. While some fringe environmental groups are celebrating, others in the Environmental Movement say this simply goes too far. For example, former new york city michael bloomberg, a major ally of environmental groups called the governors decision a misguided policy, that, quote, doesnt make any sense at all. The president obama interior sect sally jewel who served before joining the president s cabinet reacted by saying fracking bans are, quote, the wrong way to go. She added that supporters of such bans, quote, dont understand the science. Similarly california governor jerry brown, a celebrated environmentalist, flatly refused to ban hydraulic fracturing when it came up on an interview on meet the press. And in colorado where i live a special task force convened by John Hickenlooper recently rejected a new york style fracking ban. Against that back drop the question our white paper seeks to answer is how did Governor Cuomo justify a decision that falls so far outside of the mainstream. To support the ban, the Cuomo Administration produced a 184page literature review of recently published Research Papers. But as detailed in our white paper, we discovered significant and undisclosed ties between some of the research used to ban fracking in new york and the Political Campaign to ban fracking in new york. For example, one paper was written by fracking opponents who actually used buckets lined with plastic bags to take air samples near oil and gas wells. You might think this kind of paper would get shot down in the peer review process. But the peer reviewers were also fracking opponents. One of them was sandrastein graver, the states leading antifracking campaign group. When asked by a reporter about this, stein graver insisted her peer review, was quote, absolutely objective. Then a few days after that interview, she gave a speech at a postban celebration with antitracting activists in albany where she said, quote, it is so sweet now to come together in one room to tell the story of our victory. But there is more. We found a network of environmentally active foundations funding the groups that produce this research paper. Some of the Media Outlets that covered the paper and the Campaign Organizations that pressured the Cuomo Administration into banning fracking. The financial ties totaled 3. 7 million at the research phase, 2. 2 million at the media phase and more than 16 million at the campaign phase. This wasnt an isolated case. We found at least five more Research Papers cited by the Cuomo Administration where antifracking foundations provided funding to the researches and the Media Outlets and to the campaigns that seized upon the research to drum up political opposition to Shale Development in new york. The antifracking work of these foundations was led by the Park Foundation, based in ithaca, new york, whose president has admitted to funding antifracking media and Political Campaigning in an effort to oppose fracking, quote, from every angle. In effect, the foundations built an echo chamber to drown out the facts in debate over fracking and marcelous shale developing in new york. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions. Thank you mr. Lomax. And mr. Holstein. Thank you mr. Chairman. And thank you miss johnson, members of the committee, for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the issues associated with Unconventional Oil and natural Gas Production. The essential question before the committee is whether it is appropriate for state and local governments to exercise their longstanding traditional authorities excuse me in order to ensure their citizens and communities are reasonably protected from economic and environmental harm. We believe the answer to that question is yes. While Environmental Defense fund has not been engaged directly in the various debates over the hydraulic bans and other restrictions, we believe many issues around where they debated revolve do show concerns. Unconventional oil and Natural Gas Development is a heavy industrial activity. So it is understandable that states and municipalities are seeking to exercise their traditional role in protecting thur communities and i think that response is entirely consistent with state and Community Application of things like zoning, right to know laws, industrial safety standards, et cetera. Achieving a true balance of interests is critical. That means ensuring that gas is developed responsibly through strong Public Health, safety and Environmental Protections, striking the right balance also means continuing to invest in the deployment of energy efficienty and renewable energy, even as our nation moves to dramatically expand our domestic oil and Gas Resources. I would like to touch on several of the key issues presented by hydraulic fracturing. One is well integrity. It is true that there has yet to be conclusive evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself has caused Drinking Water contamination. However it is widely understood that poor well construction and maintenance can create pathways for contamination of ground Water Resources by introduced and naturally occurring chemicals. Water management. Between 1 sand 5 million gallons of tracting fluids are used in a hydraulic tracting operation and about 800 billion gallons of wastewater are generated annually by on shore oil and gas operations in the United States. Where that water comes from and how it is managed during storage, transportation and treatment and disposal are issues of legitimate state and local concern. Air quality. Because of intensive shale Gas Development, the small town of pinedale, wyoming, has experienced smog comparable to those of los angeles. Polluted air from oil and gas operations is a growing concern across the country. In addition, methane emissions from natural gas emissions are a potent source of Greenhouse Gas solution. Earthquakes. Reports of earthquakes occurring as results of hydraulic fracturing are widespread, including in oklahoma, arkansas, texas, ohio and kansas. Whether those earthquakes are the result of High Pressure frack jobs or high water waste water disposal wells, earthquake activity in the areas can be deeply alarming to members of the public. In fact just this week the oklahoma geography logical survey released a statement concluding that it is very likely that most of the recent earthquakes in the central part of the state, and there have been hundreds of those earthquakes, were triggered by the injection of produced water into disposal wells. Infrastructure. The impact on roads, water systems, schools, social services, land and neighborhoods of intensive oil and Gas Development is a leading concern of the many communities across america that find themselves. Often for the first time, in the center of new energy development. In states like texas and oklahoma, hundreds of cities have adopted local rules that enabled the Orderly Development of oil and gas. Unfortunately, such measures are under attack in many jurisdictions, including most recently in texas where the legislature is considering a bill that would sweep away nearly all local authority. We think that would be an unfortunate overreaction. Dismantling local Regulatory Authority increases risks by creating regulatory gaps. It also stops communities from imposing even the most reasonable rules governing issues such as well setbacks from homes, schools, and parks. There can be even more opposition to oil and gas operations. In many states, new regulatory measures have not kept pace with the intense rate of new oil and Gas Development which of course is made possible by hydraulic fracturing and other new technologies. Local communities have become increasingly restive about shale and Oil Development with their borders. And as i note in my written testimony many communities and states have very little and in some cases no experience with the oil and gas operations. So while drilling bans may not be the solution in the long run, they surely do reflect a need for governments at the federal, state and local level to take more aggressive action to protect the environment and the economy. Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts about the basis for these public concerns. Thank you, mr. Holstein. And ill recognize myself for questions and let me address my first one to chairman craddick. And you stated that the criticism directed toward fracking is unfounded and inaccurate and i pointed out in my Opening Statement that the administration is now zero for three in their very public accusations that somehow fracking contaminates water. What is the harm caused by this kind of misinformation . And what can we do about it . Well i think first and foremost, and i appreciate the question, there is a lot of harm caused by misinformation and i think part of the job as a regulator is to make sure that people understand were out there inspecting and doing our job and that we have rules very vibrant rules in place. But when we look at, if you have a fracking ban like weve had proposed in texas and we always want to make sure we are respectful of the voters but i think misinformation is the city of denton is part of what has caused the fracking ban vote there. It is a taking of Property Rights first and foremost. I think all of us respect private Property Rights and citizens to develop their own mineral interests first and foremost. But it is a problem for texas. Just to give you a perspective of where texas is. Numbers from the end of last year, the oil and gas industry put into the texas economy 15. 7 billion into the texas economy. That is both property tax, all kinds of taxes, but also payments to the royalty and mineral interest owners. The industry created both direct and indirect 2. 2 million jobs in the state of texas. And if we decide to ban fracking and or limit what we are noing to going to do, i think youll see those jobs go away and not come back. Thank you for that response. And dr. Siegel, you mentioned the two studies, 2011, 2012 that were cited by new york to justify their banning of fracking. Your own study refuted their findings. And you mentioned several times the bias involved in those studies and in the coverage of those studies. What accounts for the bias . What drives the bias . What is the motive and what can be done about that . That is a good question. Would you turn on your mic there. Um, that is an excellent question, mr. Chairman. I cant read into the minds of the researchers at duke of of why they designed the study the way they did. But as i said in my testimony, it struck me when i first saw the paper, the first one in 2011, that the sampling appeared to be done in a way to to highlight places where a few gas well problems had occurred in pennsylvania. Some have occurredch a few handful have occurred. And that was one of them. And it struck me if their goal was to come up with an assessment of in general systematically or systemically, is there a problem with gas wells and gas and Domestic Water, they should have sampled differently. As why in new york it got such such impact, i think it had to do with the media coverage, and the actual rob jackson promotion of his paper. And so people picked up on that. And how to prevent that, i really dont know. Its a big issue of how how science is perceived in the public and how to present the best science there is in a way that the public can understand it. Mr. Siegel and mr. Lomax, mr. Lomax, youve discovered, no surprise, this network of foundations and activists who seem to engage in what we might call and which youve called advocacy science, which i dont think is science at all. You might take a swing at how do we counter this bias that you have discovered, why it is not scientific, and what we can do about it. So ive mentioned in my testimony that i live in colorado. I live in denver, which is a major yah for colorado. It is good to see you congressman. I have the great privilege of working alongside and interacting with on a daily basis the men and women of the oil and gas industry in colorado who make the oil and gas industry run. Geologists, engineers, other technical experts. Because the oil and gas business is fundamentally a scientific enterprise. Without the science of geology, you dont know where to get the oil and the gas and you dont know how to bring a well to bring the oil and gas to the surface to turn it into the energy and consumer goods that support our support our way of life. And if there is one thing that i could convey from my discussions with them is they just want a debate that is based on facts. They just want a debate that is based on facts. Because as practitioners of science themselves, they know that the facts conclude that the oil and gas industry, while not being perfect, it most certainly safe. And so i think that in terms of the undisclosed conflicts and biased that you see, sometimes in the research and in some media platforms that claim to be news outlets, that should be more that should be more clearly disclosed. Im here at the committee today, very clearly an advocate of the oil and gas industry. That is not something i shy away from. It is something im very proud of. And i chose to go to work in oil and gas after a long and happy career as a reporter, as a journalist. So people know where im coming from. People can judge for themselves if im somebody worth listening to or not. And one of the things that i think that you may have noticed about my testimony is that i was pointing people to thinks that pointing people to authori authorityive sources from outside of the industry, particularly environmental regulators so you dont have to take my word for it. Thank you mr. Lomax. The Ranking Member miss johnson is recognized. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Let me thank all of the witnesses for being here. And simply say that i i am really seeking information. And im reading an article here now that was published in the wall street journal this week, as a matter of fact. Yesterday. And it talked about the Oklahoma Geological survey released a statement on tuesday saying it is now considered very likely that most of the hundreds of earthquakes in the state center in recent years were triggered by the injection of produced water in disposal wells. Southern Methodist University scientists, being a Small University in dallas, texas, indicated that 2013 northwest of fenderbender was also likely caused by the wastewater injection. Now i dont i dont see anything wrong with the findings. What concerns me is the denial of the findings. It would seem to me that if these findings continue, even with the university of texas research, are we addressing the findings . That is my major concern. Just last weekend, that was a Major Incident just northwest, i think, of fenderbender, near arlington, where a familys house collapsed and the water was everyone was told not to drink the water. I have never found anything wrong with research. But my feeling is that once we find findings, rather than denying it is happening, can we start to address the issue. And what do we get from denying citizens from being so fearful that they dont want to see that near their homes. I would like to see mr. Lomax and mr. Siegel, would you address that for me . What is the im trying to get to why were trying to deny this is going on. I just want the information so we cannot just focus on it is not happening, to focusing on what can we do about it. Well, i mean i im not denying, i never would deny that the high injection of water in injection wells at extremely high rates wouldnt potentially cause earthquakes. Ive seen the studies the usgs has done and there are a number, not much, but a few, high capacity injection wells in which produced waters are being inje injected, in ohio and other places and so forth. The remedy to that is to inject probably at much smaller rates. If more wells injecting at lower volumes. So i certainly wouldnt deny those results. They come from very credible sources. In terms of allaying the publics fears, im not sure how to do that. But in the context of what you just said, i think it is fairly wellknown now that if you inject too much fluid at a given location and in certain geography logical settings you could induce earthquakes. And having said that, from the reading of the journals and literature produced on the earthquakes and in oklahoma and elsewhere, most of them are the kind that you cant feel. But most of them you cant feel. I have felt them. I felt them week before last. And you cant deny that and i would never deny that. An the solution to that, although this is not my area of great expertise, but my understanding is you would have more injection wells spread out over a larger area and then you wouldnt have that kind of problem. That is the sense i get from my colleagues who study this kind of thing. Mr. Lomax, do you have a comment . Yes, maam, thank you for your question. My issue is almost never with the Actual Research but the way that those findings get politicized and misrepresented and used by groups to say that hydraulic fracturing particularly, even though were talking about a completely separate process, wastewater injection, when they use that for a case for banning fracking, on the issue of in duced seismicity, i go back to some testimony that was presented to the United States senate a couple of years ago by one of the nations leading gio physicists Stanford University mark zob acwho studies this and is an adviser to the Obama Administration on this issue and didnt say it is a nonissue, just wanted to put it in perspective. So for instance, he said there are more than 140,000 of these wastewater disposal wells that are used by the oil and gas industry but also other industries too. And that the vast, vast majority of those have been operating safely for decades. So it is the it is the context and it is the lack of a factual discussion of the research that i take issue with and that i hear about all of the time from geologists and engineers inside of the oil and gas industry who just want the debate focused on the facts, rather than it being rather than it being politicized and sensationalized and in an effort to run a Media Campaign to ban fracking. Thank you. Now miss craddick. You went over and im going over. But you went over more than i did. [ laughter ] one more question. The Ranking Member will, with that objection, will be recognized for another minute. Thank you. Were aware that some of these incidents happen. My concern is when people get concerned, it is real to them. The answer to just keep them from expressing it by keeping them from having local ordinances, or do we make a recommendation to move out of the urban areas to where it is happening to some other area. I will stand here and this will frighten people. And i stood in downtown also and the building shook a week ago. And i said im on the sixth floor. That could not be a car. And then the news came on and said it was an earthquake. Were not accustomed to earthquakes in that area. ipp but now we are. I mean they are happening very frequently. Urban, denton, fenderbender and all in the midcities area. Is it stupid to say people dont want that to happen near their homes . Because to me, to say you are not going to pass an audience an ordinance in this state to stop this, do we have a fund to pay these people when their homes get torn up and their health is effected . Well, thank you for the question. I think with the commission, we take seismicity very seriously. We last year in april hired a seismologist, the First Time Ever in the history that weve done that because we are, like everybody else, looking for answers. Im not sure it is always oil and gas related when you look at irving. However we have been out inspecting on a regular basis and we have rules to follow and based on representations from our seismologist last aug we adjust august we adjusted rules for saltwater disposal wells and following those rules because we are trying to be respectful and responsive. However were still looking at the science and data like everybody else and we think our rules and information have to be based on the good science and good information. But we also at the same time as a commission have been up and done town Hall Meetings in irving and azell and so we want to be involved in the communities so they understand what we do and we have stringent rules. When you mentioned arlington last week with a potential well that had some problems, we were on scene once we got the call, within an hour and we are on scene for 24 hours straight as an agency and are coinuing to follow up with that well to make sure our rules are being followed. So we take being a regulator and inspector and if a rule is not followed, then we have a stringent enforcement process as well. So i think part of our challenge is to communicate those that information to local communities and local residences and we are as we speak trying to up our communication efforts. And we do work with cities and want to continue to do that as well. One more question and then im done. When peoples homes collapse, and when they have that kind of incident, what responsibility do the companies that are doing the drilling have . Obviously, if it is proven that they have the right to file a lawsuit, we also obviously if a well has a problem and a rule has been broken, we also do enforcement penalties at our agency as well. So they have the ability to file a lawsuit if that is the appropriate remedy for them. Thank you very much. Thank you miss johnson. The gentleman from california, mr. Roar balker is recognized. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Let me just state the very emphatically that i dont know anyone on our side of the aisle that doesnt believe that states and local communities have a right to make determinations as to what will be permitted to operate within their own borders. We, in fact, pride ourselves in believing that local controls, et cetera let me however, with that said, would you like to ask mr. Holstein, you mentioned hundreds of earthquakes. You know when people talk about earthquakes, those of us in california, we know what earthquakes are. And it is a very frightening thing to hear about hundreds of earthquakes. Just what was the dollar damage done by all of these earthquakes in oklahoma . I dont know, sir. You dont know. Okay. You mentioned hundreds of earthquakes. To us, that is frightening. I think that that my guess, anyone else on the panel have any idea what the dollar damage was done or is this just that is an earthquake. There is some movement there. Do we know the dollar damage . Would ask the panel to get back to me with that information. Because my guess is, is that it is not very much. My guess is that it is like a big Truck Driving by and that shake is called an earthquake. Do you consider, mr. Holstein, does your organization consider any seismic activity as an earthquake in. Congressman, let me emphasis that as chairman craddick noted, many of the states that have in place experienced regulators are scurrying to answer some of the questions you are raising. But their first order of business, i think, as regulators of the industry, is to discover just scientifically what is the connection between the earthquakes and many possible activity. How about answering that question. Does your organization consider any seismic activity as an earthquake . No. Okay. They dont. So what is your definition of an earthquake that gives us hundreds of earthquakes in oklahoma . Congressman, in my testimony, the site the references i made to the earthquakes came from the report that the Oklahoma Geological survey has issued in the last few days. So we didnt let me just say we did not do any independent investigations. Secondly, i want to endorse your suggestion that we gather information about the costs of whatever earthquakes may have occurred. Certainly. And i think the Insurance Industry is a good source for that. Let me note that i am a former journalist as well. I remember a story that i covered years ago when there was we had an offshore oil well disaster, and it doesnt exist any more, the water is back to its normal state in california after that, and i think it was 1969, there was a Big Oil Spill out there. And any way, the Oil Companies had decided they were going to pay for Major Research into the into the danger of offshore oil wells. And i was called in as a reporter to cover one of these hearings that they were having. And you had these guys with ph. Ds and they really talk about professionals that were hired on to try to give the public some answers about the actual dangers of offshore oil drilling. Well, when i got to the hearing, there was a young lady outside with a rubber duck covered with oil screaming, murderers, murderers. And that young lady with the rubber duck got all of the press coverage that day. She was put on par. And i asked her as we left, and i said, well are you a student here locally. No. She said im hitchhiking through town. And how did you get over here. This guy that picked me up said he would put me up if i hold up this rubber duck and scream murderer at these people and i dont like these Oil Companies any way. You know, weve got to get series about serious about these environmental issues. And there are a lot of People Holding out the rubber duck with oil dripping from it screaming murderer. And then what we end up with is less safe energy. What we end up with, and what we ended up in california with, was and other places where they banned now offshore oil drilling for so long, and we ended up with oil being delivered by tanker, which is probably ten times more dangerous than anything coming from an offshore oil well. We have people who have opposed the pipeline that we the Keystone Pipeline for environmental reasons and then we end up with even more danger transporting that same oil and gas by trains. So, look, i think everybody and nobody who is in their right mind is going to want there to be more danger environmentally, things that will hurt. We all have children. We want our children to inherit a planet that is cleaner. And we have people acting irrationally and i believe it is based on some messy onic theory that we have to change the oil and gas because we are changing the climate and thus anything we do is justified. And i think we need to be careful with our facts mr. Chairman. And thank you for this hearing. Thank you. The gentleman from oregon is recognized for her questions. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman and thank you for the witnesses for being here today for the important discussion. I want to take a minute to recognize camille here who is recognized from girls inc. , my daughter for the day and in the fourth grade and she has a class in science and in technology at her school. So when we talk about science literacy, i want to tell you there is hope for the next generation. So back home in oregon, my constituents reside along or near an active fault, the cascadia abduction zone. So for this reason oregonians are concerned about seismic issues as they should be. Currently the Oregon Legislature is studying hydraulic fracturing. We have none in our state at present. And as mr. Holstein testified both in his oral testimony and in his written testimony, he was talking about the Oklahoma Geological survey. I would like to, has this been entered, the survey . I would like to ask this be made part of the record today. Without objection, so ordered. The statement dated april 21, 2015, where they are talking about how the size missity rate has increased and im going to read this, very likely that the majority of recent earthquakes, particularly those in central and North Central oklahoma are triggered by the injection of produced water and disposal wells. So i know that the water being injected in oklahoma deep wells come from the wastewater used to frack the wells and produce the water that comes up along with the oil and gas. So we do have that now in the record and i hope everyone will take a look at it. Mr. Holstein, you talked about hydraulic fracturing and you mentioned heavy industrial activity and my colleagues are talking about the the right of states to properly regulate that type of activity and i know we have a colleague here from new york, there have been a the conversation about what theyve done in new york and i know vermont has also imposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing. I want to ask you, mr. Holstein, in addition to the seismic issues, which were raised with regard to oklahoma, that my constituent are especially concerned about, what other Environmental Concerns are associated with the disposal of fracturing excuse me fracking wastewater and produced water and i also wanted you to just address a little bit more the use of water. You say you mentioned that in your testimony and i know that the texas alone has used more than 44 billion gallons of water in fracking activities. I dont have the time frame on that. But could you talk a little bit about the amount of water. In parts of oregon were very concerned about drought. California, and we look across a lot of the country facing drought. Could we have a sense of the volume of water that is used. Yes. Certainly, congresswoman. You are right to put your finger on the issue that so many communities are worried about and states, particularly those states that are suffering through terrible droughts right now, which is that these Unconventional Oil and gas Drilling Operations frequently require very large amounts of water. One to 5 million gallons per well. So that is dozens, if not sometimes hundreds of trucks rumbling up and down local roads. Okay, that is one of the reasons why we argue this is a heavy industrial activity. But the broader context in which you are putting the water issue is exactly right. It is the availability of water. It is the challenge of treating water. It is the challenge of in jektijek jekt of injecting water and the discussion you had with respect to earthquakes and protection of Water Supplies and all of the issues kind of resolve around the fact that there are enormous quantities of water. How much . In my testimony, i indicate that there is approximately 800 billion billion gallons of water that must be managed or disposed of in the course of a years worth of Unconventional Oil and gas. I dont want to interrupt you, but i would like you to address in the remaining time the studies looking at the release of methane during hydraulic fracturing, please, and why that is significant. Yes. We have done a lot of work in that area jointly with industry as well as academic partners and others. In Peer Reviewed studies that are taking a look at the methane issue across the natural gas supply chain. And as you know. Natural gas is 97 or so methane so emissions from anywhere in the supply chain are harmful to the climate but they also come along with volatile organic compound that are a hazard. To answer your question directly, the release of methane from Unconventional Oil and gas wells is a problem, but it is a solvable problem. Provided that operators use techniques that are available to them and equipment that is available to them. Because if you look at the whole supply chain of where natural gas or methane leaks from, what you find is that as much as 40 of those methane emissions will come from the production segment. Were working, as i said, with partners to get a better handle on exactly that figure. But i think the important point that has come up through the scientifically peerreviewed studies is the design of the wells an the techniques used by the operators can make a huge difference in the amount of methane that escapes. And and so this is a so this is a concern for local communities, because of local air pollution, and for the nation as a whole. Because of its contribution to to Greenhouse Gas emissions. I would finally say that methane is a nasty climate actor. It is 84 times as powerful as Carbon Dioxide in the first 20 years or so after it is released. And the significance of that point, and i believe attached to my testimony and in the record, youll find a scientific article about this problem. But the significance of that is that it creates a nearterm problem with respect to Greenhouse Gas emissions. In other words damage to the climate. And together with co2 is a onetwo punch at the climate. Thank you very much. My time is expired. I yield back. The gentleman from florida, mr. Posey, is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this hearing. I have a lot of concern about fracking. And seismic testing. And we get so much diverse information disseminated. Today we have three people saying positive things and one person saying negative things and it is hard to to tell who all is telling the truth and who might not be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Holstein, in your written testimony you made things a little bit different than your oral testimony and i think i heard you say in your oral testimony that true, there is no evidence fracking causes contamination or maybe fracking would you repeat that for me, please. Yes, sir. And hopefully i said the same thing in my oral testimony summy as i did summary as i did in the written, but if i didnt, i welcome the opportunity to repeat it here. There is yet to be conclusive evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself has caused Drinking Water contamination but poor well construction and maintenance can create pathways for okay. That is what i wanted to hear. Thank you. You know, i heard people say the same thing about the alamo. It is true that theal am mow does not itself cause any contamination but all of the people that go to visit it, they probably travel there by car or something and they probably cause some kind of pollution. Somebody else said the same thing about the super bowl. It doesnt cause any pollution, but people that go to see the super bowl turn on television and watch the super bowl, that consumes energy. People say the same thing about the statue of liberty. It doesnt cause pollution, but people that take a boat to it, the boat causes pollution taking them there and the energy for the boat has to be produced. Somebody said the same thing about the white house. The white house itself does not cause any environmental damage, but people who go to see the white house have to travel there, and we know that virtually just about every product that we enjoy kmums consumes some type of energy in the making of it. How do the samples differ from the point youre making . [ inaudible ]. [ laughter ] congressman, i think it is important for me to point out that Environmental Defense fund has not been reflexively opposed to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development or the widespread development of these new resources that previously were economically unavailable to america. So i begin with that point. And simply summarize the thrust of my testimony by saying that it is too narrow of a focus simply to look at one dimension of hydraulic fracturing. That is why my testimony addresses the many issues that come along with unconventional drilling. But at the same time, it points out in considerable detail the actions that have been taken in states like texas, in states like colorado, in states like pennsylvania and wyoming, to try to address these concerns. And one of the things that i believe chairman craddick has said, that we so strongly support, and in fact, i was thinking about it as congressman roar backer was speaking, with respect to offshore drilling, and that is respect that one of the essential challenges for regulators is to simply keep up with the enormous amount of innovation going on in the oil and gas industry. And i make no complaint about that innovation. I simply note that it is a highly complex and heavy industrial activity and regulators need to be on their toes. So let me conclude my response to you by saying that if you can imagine the many communities and states where suddenly oil and Gas Development is occurring, where no one alive has ever seen it before, has ever experienced it before, has ever worked in the industry before, you can imagine the challenges to elected officials at the state and local levels in trying to device appropriate regulatory programs and oversight. And that is why we have such differences from state to state, with states like texas having 100 years or more of aggressive and increasingly complex regulation of the industry. But other states that are just starting out. And similarly, we have a tremendous difference in the reactions that you see between the reactions you see politically to some of the local fights over banning. Very briefly. Yeah. I see my time is going to be up. I want to thank you, thank all of the witnesses for appearing today. My particular interest is in offshore drilling, that you mentioned. And it is through hearings like this that the chairman was kind enough to have that we share those ideas and we learn from different states and learn different techniques and do more factfinding on these issues that arent 100 clear. Chairman, i thank you for the time and yield back. Thank you, mr. Pull mitter is recognized for his questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i want to thank my friend from florida because what hes brought up, he gave examples, the white house and the super bowl and the whatevers. I think he and i both serve on the banking committee, the Financial Services committee. And so one of the places where we may see an intersection at some point is with insurance. Property and casualty insurance. If, in fact, there are the dangers that some people have suggested. So we will see this come up in our other committee, i would say to my friend from florida. Now, colorado, obviously weve had a lot of discussion about fracking, and about its place in the body politic and Legal Community and the regulatory area. And so ive been dealing with this subject for ten years now, would you say, as a policymaker. And for me, the fact that we have moved ourselves towards Energy Independence as a policy and as a successful goal from the innovation of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking is good. But and i think miss craddick, you said it well, we have to take reasonable precautions, though, with something that has helped us achieve another goal. And weve got to as policymakers we have to balance the dangers that potentially come from an industrial operation, as mr. Holstein described it, and the fact that some things are going on underground, we may or may not be able to see. Some things are happening at the service, where there is a collision of an industrial operation and the School Next Door and whether you need a curb cut for the trucks, and what is going on in the air. Is there an escape of methane or some other emission into the air. And mr. Lomax knows, weve been having that discussion in colorado on a pretty, you know, heated basis. Whether it should be a local government, the State Government, or the federal government in charge of all of this. Colorado, similar to texas, it is the State Government basically has the final say. Our colorado oil and gas commission. And that is generally where ive been. But we cannot ignore the potential for dangers. We as policymakers have to recognize dangers. And im looking at oklahoma. There is an article yesterday where the Oklahoma Geological survey said were worried about seismic problems. So, you know, they said and they attribute it to the deep wastewater injection wells. And in colorado weve had some seismic activity that ordinarily is not something we have in colorado. We want that to be only in oregon and people come to colorado because they are worried about oregon. Sorry. [ laughter ] so i would say, i would like to ask a question of mr. Holstein, good to see you. So take a look in what you do at edf and what you did formerly within the administration, am i incorrect in trying to divide it up into three sections, what goes on underground and on the surface and what goes on in the air. Fair enough. So, what ive come to the conclusion of is the surface part is really a local matter. It is zoning and curb cuts and truck traffic, does that make sense to you. I think my testimony strongly suggests similar line of thinking. I hadnt divided it up quite the same way but it makes sense, yes. Would you ask mr. Siegel, would you i mean how do you know look at how we divide sort of the regulatory components of all of this . Well, it is hard for me to reply to that because im not a regulator and ive pretty much restricted my views to what i know and feel pretty comfortable with which is water. So youre a scientist and dealing with water and what is going on. That is correct. And on the surface. And on the surface. So from your study, the pollution or contamination youve seen has been with poor casing, some poor practicing with respect to the well. Well, not quite. And my experience which is largely restricted to the appalachian basis. And the kind of problems in pennsylvania is there are occasional surface spills, certainly in the past, before the industry took notice and now that amount of spillage has really decreased. And as far as the casings, a few instances, a few handful of in stances wouldnt that be the prop lek in demmic. Demmic well there was a question when they drilled, there was some issues of drilling but it could also be casing as well. And that was natural gas from somewheres below coming into peoples homes. As far as the other fluids associated with industry, it is mostly surface issues that are the problem. And those are are readily taken care of in most cases. We dont have open pits in appalachia any more. And in terms of the flowback water an the produced water in appalachia basin, it is my understanding that the flowback is reused to drill new wells. And so the quantity of flowback and produced water has gotten really small. They actually have to take of it and ship it to ohio or something for injection. Because the industry has developed ways to do this. And in pennsylvania, there was a remarkable situation where one of the companies and i forget which one, suggested they develop a way to use acid mine drainage out of coal mines as a frack water additive instead of using freshwater but there was a state regulation saying you cant get economic advantage out of using a waste product or something so they never actually did it. But the chemical engineers are at work to try to solve the issue so that maybe in the future we dont have to use freshwater, but bad water to do the actual fracking. Thank you. And mr. Lomax, my time is expired. I did want to ask a colorado question but my time has expired. The gentleman is recognized for an additional minute, without objection. Oh, all right. You know what im done. Ill let ill talk to mr. Lomax offline. I would like to, if i could, add context to the local and state issues about regulation in colorado. Sure. I think what youve seen in colorado is that on the whole, in the majority of cases, you see the oil and gas industry working constructively with both state and local governments, in order to and even supporting local regulations in order to make sure that the in order to make sure that the development is done responsibly and is done with the support of the community. There have been, as you know, some cases where there have been local bans enacted. And there has been very sort of broad regulatory and bipartisan opposition to local bans. But in terms of local regulation, there is a lot of really sort of constructive work going on between the state, between the industry and between local governments. Now, that kind of stuff doesnt generate a lot of headlines because there isnt conflict associated with it. But during the whole oil and Gas Task Force that the governor set up last year, you had the Colorado Municipal League and the Colorado Association of counties say, we can work through these issues using the existing Regulatory Framework rather than rather than turning rather than coming up with statewide policies that are basically being proposed by national ban fracking news. Mr. Holstein, he wanted to say something. Thank you. Because i just am going to crystallize an important point that mr. Lomax is making here. We believe that the set of rules that the state of colorado has put into effect in the last year are among the most progressive and comprehensive in the nation in terms of the range of issues they develop. And we were delighted to partner with the three largest oil and Gas Developers in the state in coming together to develop the consensus that led to that comprehensive new set of rules. But the driver for that conversation and what brought everyone to the table was the fact that colorado communities, one by one, were adopting or considering bans, putting them on the ballot, and there were, indeed, headlines across the state about whether or not oil and Gas Development, particularly involving unconventional development, including hydraulic fracturing, would be permitted in the state. So i would simply point out this is the danger of to these bans. You need to bring people together and you need to take aggressive action to address the issues. Thank you. Im going to be drummed out of off of this committee if i take any more time. Thank you. The gentleman from ohio is recognized, mr. Johnson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I live in a very rich, shell rich region of eastern and southeastern ohio. And hydraulic fracturing has been a a process that has had profound economic, positive economic implications to the people that live in appalachia, ohio. Im very concerned about some of the issues that were talking about here today. And chairman craddick, there has been a lot of discussion about earthquakes here this morning. Is there some confusion that the earthquakes are being caused by hydraulic fracturing when it is really the deep well injection of the waste . Would you take a minute and comment on that . First and foremost, thank you for the question and i will say your governor and some of your legislators and regulators have been to the River Commission so we can explain what were doing. Hopefully we continue to give you good advice as you are putting a vibrant oil and Gas Community together up there as well. We obviously all take seismicity very seriously and the Information Available today is that hydraulic fracturing is not causing earthquakes. Thats the Information Available in texas today. We are still researching and looking at the available science and we just had an smu study come out on monday night, tuesday this week, that our seismologist is going through and working with them. We hope they present the study to us in the near future. So we can ask our appropriate questions as with regulators on other legislatures in session right now in texas, they want to ask questions as well. Were still looking at deep water injection wells and whether that is the potential challenge in texas. So the answer is i dont think anybody absolutely knows. What i do think some of the studies potentially do is rule out potential problems that could be caused by earthquakes. Let me clarify, just for the record, youre saying there is no evidence yet at this point that would indicate that hydraulic fracturing is causing earthquakes . Thats the information we have available, yes, sir. All right, thank you. What i think some of the studies do is rule out issues but im not sure they can ever tell you specifically what is specifically causing it. Got it. Thank you. Dr. Siegel, many advocacy groups claimed the methane found in Drinking Water of various homes was caused by hydraulic fracturing. Now, if methane is naturally occurring, how can you tell if it is naturally occurring or as a result of oil and Gas Development . Well, ive always thought it was fairly simple. If you have gas from a gas well, my understanding and if it gets out and gets into a Domestic Water supply, what youll find is methane alkaseltzer being produced, where it was not there before. Now, there are some places in pennsylvania and in new york where we have naturally methane alkaseltzer occasionally coming out of some Drinking Waters wells and where there is no drilling at all. And this is a unique geologic situation. But you dont the state of pennsylvania doesnt to my knowledge identify the future of gas by analyzing and seeing dissolved concentrations you cant see get higher. Homeowners say my well is bubbling gas, and hasnt bubbled before. And there is a gas well nearby. So the very few cases i know where there has been gas and most of which have been easily taken care of by recementing. It is very apparent, all right. So thats what concerned me about the previous studies, looking at dissolved methane, the stuff you cant see and saying that increases in these which very enormously over time, naturally, somehow are related to oil and gas. Thats what we found wasnt the case. Sure. One follow on question, you know, though it makes for good cinema and antifracking advocacy, is natural gas in Drinking Water a new phenomenon . Well, not to my knowledge. The very first time i came to syracuse, 1981, first call i got from a citizen who heard there was a hydrologist there had had to do with natural gas and the water well. Near saratoga, new york, where i grew up. And, you know, i asked a few questions and at that particular natural gas came from a wetlands setting. The u. S. Geological survey in new york has did a study on natural gas and found every well had some natural gas. At syracuse, im funded by National Science foundation to look at natural gas and Southern Tier of new york and pretty much every place we have looked for it, or looked there has been natural gas. Certainly pennsylvania the same way. Thank you, dr. Siegel. Mr. Chairman, im going to be respectful of my colleagues time and our witnesses time and yield back within my prescribed time. Thank you, mr. Johnson. And the gentleman from virginia, mr. Buyer, is recognized for his questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all the witnesses too for being here with us today. Dr. Siegel, you expressed some concern about the duke professor studies and the bias and the sample collection, the 146, two of them or some of them near two of the wells that had failed. And yet when you gather your 12,000 or whatever youre working on, they were gathered by employees of chesapeake. A natural gas exploring. Why is that inherent bias much greater than researchers working for a university . I think you mischaracterized what happened with the chesapeake. Chesapeake gas, to my knowledge, what i was told, is they hired National Consultants who sampled for them and National Recognized certified labs by epa and so forth to do the analysis. So chesapeake didnt sample themselves. They hired independent contractors hired all over the country and environmental work to do the sampling. And so i dont see that those samples could have been compromised or would have been compromised by the fact that chesapeake hired independent consultants to do the sampling much like, you know, i hire a laboratory to do analyses for me. Doctor, you also expressed some concern about i guess maybe blogs or others that were critical of the failure to disclose the connection. The original said the authors show no competing interest even though the samples were paid for to be collected by chesapeake, youre paid for by chesapeake there are plenty of scientific codes of conduct, scientific codes of conduct that say these sorts of conflicts at the very least need to be disclosed. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Buyer. The gentleman from alabama, mr. Palmer, is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chairman craddick, how does geology impact the process of fracking . The composition of formations that youre fracking . Obviously thats one of the things we rely on operator to look at. If there is a fault, and that fault is a known fault, then we were not allowing drilling to occur in that fault, first and foremost. We take that into account as do companies. Thats part of the Risk Assessment as well. In that regard, isnt it true that the geology of texas, the history of it is is that there has been more than 100 earthquakes, large enough to be felt over the recent past, how many of those could the ones in the 1800s, early 1900s, ive got a whole list of texas earthquakes that occurred befoor fracking, why do you think that happened . Youve done your research obviously. We had a question earlier about irving when you look at the history of irving, it is an earthquake capital of texas that really we dont have really any oil and gas going on in it. So i think it is a fair brr r suggestion to think there are other things besides just oil and gas causing earthquakes at this point. How about oklahoma . There has been a long history of earthquakes in oklahoma, may not be a fair question for you since youre not from oklahoma, but isnt that true as well . That there have been a number of over the last 100 years of earthquakes in oklahoma that probably were not attributable to any human activity . I believe even though im not from oklahoma we share a border and we Pay Attention and work with their commission as well and so that would be a fair statement, yes, sir. Also true of colorado, and it is a little more difficult because they have only in terms of history recently have been tracking colorado earthquakes, i think, maybe the earliest was 1970s, a series of earthquakes in colorado that caused damage in the early 1900s in denver. There is more damage. More settlement and more people moving in, you start to notice these things as there is more people. I would like to cite something from the report of the university of texas, the institute of geophysics. Talks about along the gulf coast and northeast texas these the earthquakes or the magnitudes between m 4 and m 4. 8. It says fortunately the vast majority do not cause earthquakes. And the majority of human caused earthquakes are small and harmless. Would you agree with that . Thats what we have seen thus far, yes, sir. Also in regard to methane, emissions, since were on the topic of the university of texas, there is a Research Report done through the university of texas that was done in close coordination with the Environmental Defense fund. I think one of our witnesses works for them. And they have basically found that that epas estimates for methane emissions are far lower than what antifracking groups frequently claim. As a matter of fact, i think as the Newer Technology has been employed, that theyre capturing most of the emissions now. Would you could you validate that . Well, we dont do air emissions, we do work with our sister agency, the tcq in texas. Theyre telling us and believe that air emissions for methane have dropped 70 in texas since 2001. So could we possibly conclude from that as the technology has improved, the methane capture has improved along with it . Woi] i believe that would be a fair conclusion, yes, sir. Thank you. One last thing is it was mentioned that states ought to be able to regulate well, actually it was just brandeis was quoted, but i believe it was Justice Brandeis that referred to the states as laboratories of democracy. I agree with that statement. And i think that the states have particularly since they have more knowledge of their geological issues than the federal government does, in many respects, that these things should be dealt with at state level. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield the balance of my time. Thank you, mr. Palmer. The gentleman from new york, mr. Thank you, mr. Chair. I want to echo sentiments shared earlier by our Ranking Member. Very odd to have a hearing in which we seem to be belittling local communities for the decisionmaking about their own quality of life. I think that kind of freedom is the essence of our democracy. To claim that communities are making decisions simply because of Bad Information is rather interesting. But irrelevant. I could point out that Bad Information on Climate Change or on the costs of the Affordable Care act which some refer to as obama care seem to be driving all kinds of voter choices around our country. But i dont think my friends on the other side are going to work very hard to set those records straight. So to my questions, aimq1ur mr. Lomax, in your testimony, you state that research by energy and depth found that many of the Research Papers cited by the state of new yorks Health Review of the process of hydraulic fracturing were financed by groups that oppose fracking. Is that correct . Yes, sir. And you also cite a specific study where the authors fail to mention that they have direct ties to opposition groups. Is that correct . Yes, sir. So it seems to me that the point youre trying to make is that we should not trust the the work is financed by groups opposed to fracking. That is a bit ironic given the fact that the energy and depth effort was founded by the independent Petroleum Association of america, along with Financial Support from the American Petroleum institute, the api, chevron, shell, bp and other oil and gas companies. By your logic, we should not trust energy in depth either when energy in depth was launched by ipaa in june of 2009. They sent out a letter announcing its launch. The letter said, and i quote, energyindepth. Org, a state of the art online resource center, to combat new environmental regulations, especially with regard to hydraulic fracturing. And i close quote. In a paper by one of your colleagues, chris tucker, published last year, he described how energy and depth helps to combat opponents of hydraulic fracturing and wrote,i and i quote, the eid teams also help generate and guide stories behind the scenes. This year alone the number of new stories influenced was in the hundreds, closed quote. And he goes on to say that, quote, eid regularly engages on social networks such as twitter, facebook and youtube, always with the goal of driving the debate, closed quote. Mr. Lomax, appearing before a Congressional Committee isnt a very behind the scenes way to drive the debate. But i appreciate this opportunity to ask how you generate and guide stories behind the scenes, with a number of news stories influenced by eid in the hundreds, can you tell us how you carry out that let me deal first with your question about the failure to disclose ties to the campaigns trying to ban fracking in new york by researchers who are producing papers cited by the state of new york in order to ban fracking. My criticism of that practice was the failure to disclose those ties so that this research was and these researchers misrepresented themselves as unbiased observers as opposed to advocates. I am i only have so much time with my questioning here. Just to the question, how do you carry out your influence . I would rather hear about that right now. Well, im not sure about carrying ou8s a jjtluence. I can tell you that i am i am as i said before, and ive been very clear about, im an oil and gas industry advocate. Right, but youre involved in several behind the scenes scenarios. How do you carry out your efforts . What publications tend to be the most receptive to story ideas pitched by your organization . I see my role, both here before the committee, and answering questions from anyone who has questions about the way oil and gas is produced is to direct them to authoritative sources like state regulatory agencies, like federal regulatory agencies, and members of academia who can help answer their questions. That basically is the role that i serve and it is a very much the skills i had as a reporter trying to finance this for myself. Let me ask though, does the press know to contact you . Eid isnt exactly a household name. How does is this orchestrated behind the scenes with an effort to obviously provide a bias . I mean, researchers who observe real occurrences are not biased to reality . Perhaps . What context do the press have . How do they know to reach the eid . They, first of all, could go to our website, energyindepth. Org. My email address is simon at energyindepth. Org. I dont think there is much about energy in depth hidden or behind the scenes as you suggest. I was only quoting from the n individual who is in charge of carrying forth the mission. Okay. I see my role and it is one that i am very proud to hold as an advocate for the oil and gas industry is to get facts in front of people who want to see them. And thats really as far as it goes. Well, it is always im reminded it was a goal driving the debate that the presentation was done. I think i said in my earlier answer that the people im privileged to work with in the oil and gas industry, particularly geologists and engineers and other technical experts, they want to debate driven by facts. And someone has to put the facts someone has to help disseminate the facts and energy in depth, particularly through its website, makes those facts available. Thank you, mr. Tonko. Entleman from georgia, mr. Lauder milk is recognized. Thank you to all the witnesses here today. It is interesting were talking about facts and science and true science, just last week i was subjected to an interview by a member of the media who asked me to make a statement regarding Global Warming or Climate Change. As a conservative, as an outdoorsman, i made a complete ta u at i think we need to look at true science. And the facts that we see the science. But at the same time, we shouldnt pollute our land. We should be good stewards of the environment. Unfortunately the reporter decided to parse out my statement and take out all of the parts that did not support the end of which he wanted to make his article. Im afraid im seeing more and more of that to where even in some scientific communities where in the past opinions, scientific opinions were based on true science or fact, but today it seems that were manipulating the facts to support whatever end political end we want to come up to. And so the question goes back to some research from a minority staff report on the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee from october last year. O[p the new york based Park Foundation asked professor horwarth to write an academic article to make a case that shell gas was a later they paid 135,000 for that study. When the study came out, allegations mounted there was data manipulation and unsubstantiated assumptions. It was almost universally condemned by the Current Administration and others in academia. Later by the Environmental Defense fund. However, environmental activists such as Robert Kennedy jr. And Bill Mckibben supported the work as proof that hydraulic fracturing was worse than coal. Dr. Siegel, how can this type of paper ever make it past the peer review process. Thats a very thats a good question. Im glad you asked it. I know bob quite well. I debated him actually hes a very good ecologist among other things. The problem really in the preview process, i speak as much as an editor as a contributor to a publications is that let me give you quickly how it happens. A scientific submits a paper to a journal. And it goes to the chief editor, the chief editor assigns an associate editor to handle the paper. The associate editor has to find three to five reviewers, peer reviewers, who would be viewed to be nonbiased and so forth, it review the paper. Usually the person writing the paper suggests three names. And the editor or the associate editor can assess whether those names would be okay. And they pick some others from outside. Not unlike nsf and how they do their work, okay . The problem that has happened is that the publication system is so overwhelmed with submittals that a lot of editors simply will take whoever is offered as possible reviewers by the author in order to actually get the peer review. And thats what probably happened in the papers referring to with respect to the Health Department ruling in new york. G in my case, the paper i submitted just got published, i chose a professor at at pennz state, who is clearly unbiased, National Academy of science person, i chose a couple of people from the United States geological survey, who i thought knew a lot about methane and done independent work. And i purposefully did not choose for my reviewers, who i recommended, anyone who i thought would be biased, you know, towards the oil and gas industry. And i know who those people are. And so i got the review back and there is some really good comments and we modified the paper to address certain concerns and on it went. 9k but that kind of openness that i think im proud that i do, and my review issues, you know, it is sometimes doesnt happen. And clearly there have been a lot of papers, a number of papers, that have been opposing hydraulic fracking who have been these papers have been pretty outrageous. And when i ask the editors, well, who reviewed these papers to let them out, i discover that it is a community of people who have common views. I have an end in mind. Have an end in mind. Thats unfortunate, but part of it is the system is clogged. I wrote a couple of essays on this publish on science in nature. There is too many papers being submitted, too few reviewers to do it capably. And so stuff is getting out that just really isnt very good. Thank you, i yield back. The gentleman from illinois, mr. Foster, is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to return to the issue of injection induced seismicity. A general question, what fraction of hydro fracking injection for their economic viability. So specifically lets imagine that in some area turns out thao waste water injection had to be restricted because of seismicity concerns. Is that a mortal blow to fracking operations or merely a nuisance . Anyone who wants it. If i understood your question, over 90 of the wells being drilled now are Unconventional Oil and gas wells. And they frequently use large quantities of water as noted in my testimony there because of concerns about earthquakes and because of concerns about other problems, impacts on taxpayers, pennsylvania, where the publicly owned treatment Water Treatment works simply couldnt handle some of the materials that were coming back in the waste that were coming to those treatment works and waste water. States have been racing to put in place new measures to protect the taxpayers and their Water Supplies. But, yes, so now in pennsylvania, they dont do injection wells at all. And the waste water goes to the state of ohio, mainly that still permits deep water excuse me, deep well injection. So it is a common practice. Alternatives. If it turns out it is only the waste water injection that is the big problem. Industry is working on recycling, but you cant do the scale of hydraulic fracturing that the industry is employing now without the large volumes. As far as i know. O . 7n in areas where there appears to have been an increase in seismic activity, associated with drilling and injection operations, is there evidence of either insurance rates going up or Property Values going down . And if that does happen, what is the Legal Framework for homeowners recovering for their losses . I can give you some information about Property Values in well county, colorado, than any other in colorado. Has almost half of the states, 50,000. And Property Values in well county have been growing significantly at the same time as increased oil and Gas Development and there are some waste water disposal wells in well county. So in well county, there is an incesx2e in values. Relative comparably situated places without the drilling activities . I understand Colorado Real Estate is doing pretty well these days. This is a side by side comparison or just an absolute statement that this is based on this is based on some commentary from the well county tax assessor, who is asked specifically about do you see any kind of impact on oil and gas, do you see any impact on Property Values based on proximity to oil and gas operations, including waste water disposal wells and he said they dont see any difference between that and the rest of the county. And it is my understanding, there is anecdotal evidence that in oklahoma, that there is some unhappy local residents who might be there might be some effect there of lowering anyway, okay, im another thing has to do with the time scale for observing and diagnosing seismic activity as a result of drilling or waste water injection. You can imagine different geological scenarios, one of which is that you start the waste water injection and you have a very large number of small or that there is nothing happens and you just simply get a stress buildup underground to the point where t you get after a long period of time, one giant or relatively large quake. And how would you how would you actually correctly identify the causal link . It would be easy in the first case because you could start and stop the waste water injection, watch the seismic activity start and stop. In the second one, it sounds x tough because youre talking about something where you could where a large seismic event could be the result of a long, you know, decades of drilling. And how do you handle that from a liability point of view and from even identifying the causal i think that is what were all trying to figure out at this point. Because if you look in the permian basin, we have been drilling for a long time and dont really see a lot of earthquakes at this point out there. But if you look in the barnett shale which is where the s. M. U. Study is from, we have been drilling actively since 2008 but the amount of drilling has declined because it is a natural gas play by quite a bit. That is where seismologists and scientists are trying to figure out. Im not sure you can ever completely find the answer to your question. That is the biggest challenge, as youre modeling, it depends on modeling of the Scientific Study as ive been advised and the researchers looking at that. Theres not one best model at this point. My question is about the Legal Framework. If in the end it looks like some real damage to the seismic stability has been done by these operations, what is the legal do individual home owners have to sue someone who may have gone out of business years ago . What is the could we have a brief answer to this question . Were going to try to finish before we have to leave for votes. And who mr. Foster, who were you directing the question to . Anyone who feels capable of answering it. I dont know the Legal Framework. But i would emphasize that this conundrum makes my point earliea which is that the oil and gas industry is not static and therefore Regulatory Oversight and tx elements and challenges associated with this heavy industry. Thank you, mr. Foster. If the three remaining members who have questions can limit themselves to three minutes each we can get you all in. We have an hours worth of votes. I would like to spare the witnesses having to wait for us. Youre next. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Be real quick. Ms. Craddick, thank you for being here. I wanted to get your perspective. It sounds like in texas you work very hard to work with the local communities and there is a partnership that you have been able to work out and resolve concerns. The question about the federal governments role, i know in michigan, we have been doing fracking for many years and our department of Environmental Quality has done, i think, a 9 very good job of communicating with citizens about the technologies being used and i dont see a big role for the federal government in this. What is your sense, youre on the ground floor working with this both on the state level but also working with local communities. Do you see a role for the federal government that would in some way address issues that are not being addressed currently at the state level . We think we do at the state, quite frankly, congressman. When you look at texas we have had a casing fracking rule in place for 50 years, epa is just now proposing one. They are way behind where the 5gjjjjt hray we think it is better at state and working with local communities. At the rule commission, we dont deal with noise pollution, traffic issues. Those are local issues. So thats where we encourage operators to really work with those local communities and be good citizens. But im not sure where e. P. A. Or other federal agencies and were blessed we dont have a lot of federal lands like some of the other western states do. Most of us who have been active in oil and gas for a long time in the states already have rules in place and it would add another layer of bureaucracy is the biggest concern. Thank you. Mr. Veasey. Ms. Craddick, it is good to x see you. I wanted to just make ask you a question about just some of the recent activities that have happened in texas. I think it is perfectly reasonable that we would want to be able to produce any of our fossil fuels and Natural Resources that we have for energy here so we dont have to depend on the middle east now particularly with all the craziness that is going on over there, i think it is perfectly reasonable that we would want to be able to produce our minerals. I also think its perfectly reasonable whether youre a fisherman or a hunter or you just like gardening in your backyard, you want to be able to have clean air and clean water and that is where your agency and City Councils and what have you, they take those things into consideration when trying to pass ordinances. In 2009, your hometown, midland, had some issues with spacing. The city council there, which is a community that is pretty much completely dependent upon oil and gas for the most part, they wanted to be able to create an environment where the city could thrive and prosper for Economic Development reasons, for the enjoyment of property and they ultimately passed ordinances. The city of denton did that too and the legislature acted and denton is a much more progressive or liberal city than midland is. Do you think that these cities are being treated fairly in regards to being able to outline rules for themselves and how they want their city to be able to function . Because it just seems like there is some unfairness there. Mc it seems like what denton was trying to do was the same thing that midland was trying to do. They were trying to come up with a policy that was good for their particular city. I think the difference between what midland has done, which i think most people would consider reasonable setbacks is that they worked with local operators and communities to try to figure out what worked for ew their community. The difference is that in denton, they have banned the use of anybody in denton being able to develop their own private property whereas with a local ordinance, you still can with horizontal drilling develop those properties because you can have a reasonable setback. And, look, i think we all agree that being 500 feet or whatever a community considers appropriate for a setback to protect health and safety is not unreasonable. But banning hydraulic fracturing in a community, the private Property Rights of those individuals, you have basically banned drilling, which historically has been the to regulate it and so that is the debate right now going on in the Texas Legislature and well see where they get. Thank you very much. Thank you and the other gentleman from texas, mr. Babin is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman, appreciate it. And chairman craddick for your leadership. Thank you all you witnesses for being here today. Thank you ms. Craddick for your leadership of the Railroad Commission of texas. Texas has provided about 50 of the jobs in the country over the last six years. And i think fracking has been a huge contributor to that. In more ways than one. But i represent the 36th district in texas, in southeast texas. There was an incident in 2012 where an individual claimed that the water from their garden hose lit on fire. As it turned out, a Texas District Court found out that the individual had coordinated this stunt with an environmental activist to deceive. In this case the hose was attached to the gas line. How does your commission respon to these types of claims when you hear about this . If somebody complains that they believe their well water is on fire, were going to go out there and inspect it first and foremost. Get the facts. If there really is a problem, were going to penalize and enforce, make sure there is remediation for the problem and two, then, penalize or enforce the rules that we have available to us. As far as the actual number of legitimate incidents are concerned, perhaps only a handful from what i can read out of studies. How do we put these risks into the perspective with the Enormous Economic and societal benefits of hydraulic fracturing historically we have drilled over a million wells in the state of texas. We have over 400,000 that are active wells that we are regulating as we speak. Part of our real challenge is to make sure we are out inspecting and enforcing our rules and to make sure were also doing it on a reasonable basis, that there are good rules in place, people know the rules. But to also make sure there are facts involved. I think were a factbased agency. We have good rules i believe. Thank you very muc rc5i9n chairman. I know we have to go vote. Thank you, mr. Babin. Let me thank all of our witnesses today. This has been an exceptionally good hearing. I want to say to you all, it is a credit to you and a credit to the significance of this subject that we had 20 members here at this hearing. That is probably a new record any time but it is certainly a new record for a 9 00 in the morning hearing. Again, i appreciate your presence. Hydraulic fracturing has occurred safely for decades and is largely responsible for an improved economy, expansion of Energy Options and less reliance on middle eastern oil. Given its history and importance to our economy, attempts to regulate the process should be based on sound science and not science fiction. The record will remain open for two weeks. Again i thank the members and the witnesses and we stand adjourned. 5 thank you, mr. Chairman. The cspan cities tour visits literary and Historic Sites across the nation to hear from local historians, authors, and civic leaders. You can hear them every other weeken