U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–459 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–227 

SEAB SUBCOMMITTEE’S 90-DAY REPORT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY ADVISORY 

BOARD’S SHALE GAS PRODUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE’S 90-DAY REPORT 

OCTOBER 4, 2011 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 1 

Holditch, Stephen A., P.E., Department Head, Petroleum Engineering, Texas 

A&M University, College Station, TX ................................................................ 8 

McGinty, Kathleen A., Senior Vice President and Managing Director, Strategic Growth, Weston Solutions, Inc., West Chester, PA ................................. 15 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 2 

Yergin, Daniel, Chairman, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates .......... 4 

Zoback, Mark D., Benjamin M. Page, Professor of Earth Sciences, Department 

of Geophysics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA ........................................... 11 

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 45 

(1) 

SEAB SUBCOMMITTEE’S 90-DAY REPORT 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, 

chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. The hearing will begin. 

Thank you all for coming today. 

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Secretary of Energy advisory board’s shale gas production subcommittee’s 90-day report. 

In recent years, a number of factors have raised the prominence 

of natural gas as a resource. New applications of technologies such 

as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have led to more domestic natural gas production and have led to a reassessment of 

the U.S. technically recoverable resources. 

The international focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

has favored the lower carbon intensity of natural gas for power 

generation. The recent tragedy in Japan at the Fukushima nuclear 

plant has led both the Japanese and the German officials to 

speak—speak strongly about fuel switching to natural gas to replace, or at least, to supplement their remaining nuclear fleet. 

Concerns about our dependence on foreign oil have led some to 

propose switching our cars and trucks from imported gasoline and 

diesel fuel to domestic natural gas. Proponents of domestic manufacturing have argued that a larger, more stable gas supply at competitive prices will lead to a resurgence of investment in manufacturing in this country. 

The promise of the expanded domestic natural gas resources 

comes with a responsibility to address environmental concerns as 

well as human health and safety issues. Those concerns arise with 

increased natural gas exploration and production, particularly in 

areas that have not previously experienced a natural gas boom. 

The public has increasingly expressed concerns about the wastewater management of flow back fluids from natural gas wells, as 

well as the potential for groundwater contamination. Residents 

who live on top of, or adjacent to, the shale gas resources have also 

expressed concerns about the potential for noise pollution, diminished air quality and contamination of water resources. 
2 

Recently, there’s been increased scrutiny of fugitive methane 

emissions occurring during the natural gas extraction process. 

Methane is such a potent greenhouse gas that if even a small fraction of the overall natural gas extracted escapes to the atmosphere, 

the overall greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas usage increase substantially. 

Some experts have claimed that fugitive emissions from natural 

gas extraction are routinely high enough that switching to natural 

gas could actually be worse than continuing to use coal, while 

many other experts have disputed these claims. If natural gas is 

to be used as a lower carbon alternative to other fossil fuels, the 

issue of fugitive emissions is—is one that we must quantify, and 

understand more fully and address appropriately. 

I expect environmental, and human health and safety concerns 

related to developing unconventional gas resources can be managed, but only if they are addressed through a transparent, diligent 

and safe approach to well-site and wastewater management 

throughout each stage of the gas extraction process. 

I believe that that is what we will be addressing here today as 

we hear from the Secretary of Energy’ advisory board shale gas 

production subcommittee members concerning their recently released 90-day report. We’re very—very fortunate to have this panel 

of experts. 

Before I introduce them, I’ll call on Senator Murkowski for her 

comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Appreciate you scheduling the hearing this morning. A special 

thanks to all of our witnesses for joining us. 

I want to particularly acknowledge you, Dr. Yergin. Your latest 

book, ‘‘The Quest,’’ about global energy issues is one that, well I 

have to admit, I haven’t started reading it yet; several of my staff 

have. In fact, I think that the staff director here for the committee 

is particularly groggy this morning as he was going through it last 

night. I’m told that the early reviews are favorable. I also understand that it does include a chapter on shale gas and how that resource will factor into just about every major energy decision that 

we will make in the coming year. So I’m looking forward to that. 

I do appreciate the chance to learn more about the Secretary of 

Energy advisory board’s recent report. to spend some time thinking 

about the future of one of our nation’s most promising resources. 

Natural gas is clean-burning and abundant. It’s well understood. 

It’s scalable. It’s clearly in our best interest to takes steps to ensure 

that we maintain a stable and an affordable supply into the future 

by encouraging its safe and responsible development. That’s the 

point of our being here this morning. 

While this hearing doesn’t necessarily mean that this committee 

endorses, or even agrees with, everything within the report, it certainly does confirm the importance of the subject and the reality 

that the report embraces. 

We’ve witnessed some game changing technological innovations 

that have unlocked tremendous volumes of previously inaccessible 
3 

natural gas. These resources are already benefiting our nation by 

further diversifying our energy supplies, growing our economy and 

creating thousands upon thousand of well-paying American jobs. 

I do think it’s important to remember that success stories in the 

energy world have historically involved ingenuity and innovation 

by a few where many have seen previously impossible challenges. 

So whether we’re talking about something like constructing the 

Trans Alaska pipeline up north or, as we’ll discuss today, cracking 

the code on how to economically and safely develop our unconventional gas resources. I think that America should encourage and 

allow for this kind of ingenuity and innovation in the private sector. We should look for the same types of individuals to overcome 

the challenges that crop up with all of the activity surrounding 

such a great level of development. 

As I’ve said many times before, responsibly developing all of our 

resources is of paramount importance to us as a nation, and I think 

natural gas is certainly no exception there. We cannot realize the 

many benefits of our tremendous natural gas resource unless we 

commit to safe, environmentally acceptable production and delivery 

within a framework of appropriate regulation and access. 

I do welcome the efforts of the subcommittee to proactively find 

ways to increase the transparency and improve the efficiency of the 

extraction process. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ll conclude by, again, thanking you for scheduling this hearing. Many of our members, myself included, are 

champions of natural gas. I think greater use of natural gas would 

move our nation in the right direction in terms of energy security, 

economic growth and environmental protection. I think these are 3 

vitally important goals and every one of them should be achievable. 

With that, I thank you and I look forward to the testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Let me introduce our witnesses today. 

First is Dr. Daniel Yergin, who’s Chairman of the IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates and the author of this book that 

Senator Murkowski just referred to which we all congratulate him 

on. 

The second is Dr. Stephen A. Holditch, who is Department Head 

and Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A and M University in College Station, Texas. 

Third is Dr. Mark Zoback, who is the Benjamin M. Page Professor at the Department of Geophysics at Stanford. Thank you for 

being here. 

Finally Katie McGinty—Kathleen McGinty, who is the Senior 

Vice President and Managing Director of Strategic Growth with 

Weston Solutions in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Thank you very 

much for being here. 

Why don’t each of you take 5 or 6 minutes, and summarize 

your—the main points you think we ought to understand on this 

subject and we will, of course, include the full written statement 

that you’ve prepared for our record. 

Dr. Yergin, why don’t you begin? 
4 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL YERGIN, CHAIRMAN, IHS CAMBRIDGE 

ENERGY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 

Mr. YERGIN. Mr. Chairman, ranking members—Mr. Chairman, 

ranking members, members of the committee. 

I want to say on behalf of all the members of the subcommittee, 

we really appreciate this opportunity to come and share with you 

what we learned in the 90 days that we spent working on this 

study. 

The study—we were tasked with—and also by the way, Senator 

Murkowski, Senator Bingaman, let me thank you for your gracious 

words about ‘‘The Quest’’. So thank you. 

We were tasked with developing a study by President Obama in 

his March 31, 2011, speech in which he declared that recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves perhaps 

a century’s worth of shale. But in order to facilitate this development, ensure environmental protection and meet public concerns, 

he instructed Secretary Chu to establish—to ask the subcommittee, 

which had already been established, to address the safety and environmental performance of shale gas production. 

Senator Bingaman, you’ve sketched out were the major environment concerns that we focused on water quality, air quality and 

community impact. Our conclusion is that these environmental— 

the need for environmental protection can be met if approached 

properly. To that end, we made 20 recommendations concerning 

best practices, technological innovation, and regulatory processes. 

We do so with the recognition that almost overnight, in energy 

terms, shale gas has become a major and critical national resource. 

Senator Murkowski remarked on that things seem to happen overnight and they don’t, and there was 25 years of really hard work 

and innovative effort that went into shale gas before it achieved 

the prominence that it did. There was a sense that it was a few 

people who really carried it on. But today, shale gas accounts for 

30 percent of U.S. natural gas production and is expected to rise 

dramatically in the foreseeable future. Of course, natural gas is one 

of our backbones. It’s a quarter of our total energy. 

If we went back 5 years ago, none of this would’ve been expected. 

Instead, it would’ve been thought that we would’ve been importing 

very large amounts of LNG, perhaps $100 billion’ worth of imports 

a year for that. Now, we are mostly self-sufficient in terms of natural gas. Natural gas prices have fallen substantially, meaning 

lower bills for industry, for homeowners. Several hundred thousand 

jobs have been created in the last few years. Natural gas consuming industries have invested literally billions of dollars in the 

last few years because of this resource in a way that they would 

not have expected to half a decade ago. The development of shale 

gas has represented major new revenue sources. The State of Pennsylvania and localities in Pennsylvania last year took in $1.1 billion 

in shale gas revenues in the State. 

This is part of what was also described in concurrently in a National Petroleum Council study ‘‘Prudent Development,’’ which was 

released on September 15th to the Secretary of Energy which 

talked about, and it used the word surprising reassessment—upward reassessment of U.S. oil and gas resources, the result of technological advance. 
5 

Now, of course, the rapid development of shale gas in the last 

few years has created this series of environmental issues and concerns which are the topic of our report. My colleagues will—subcommittee colleagues will speak about the specific environmental 

issues and how to mitigate them those water quality, air quality 

and community impact. 

Altogether we have 20 recommendations. One of the starting 

points that runs through the whole thing is the need for much 

more complete measurement of water quality, air quality and specifically methane that the Chairman referred to. Many of the recommendations focus on best practices and technological innovation. 

They also emphasize the importance of community engagement and 

the need for disclosure and transparency. They recognize a central 

responsibility of State regulation in this area. 

Our subcommittee chairman, Professor John Deutch who couldn’t 

be here, wrote in his letter to the—to the committee that, ‘‘The subcommittee believes that these recommendations if implemented 

combined with a continuing focus on and clear commitment to 

measurable progress in introducing best practices based on innovation and field experience represent important steps toward meeting 

public concerns and ensuring that the nation’s resources are being 

responsibly developed.’’ 

But there are a couple of recommendations that I’d just like to 

highlight. We all realize, and you all know better than anybody, 

the difficult decisions that have to be made about the Federal 

budget and the challenges this creates, both for the Congress and 

the administration. There are 2 areas of very modest fund raise— 

of funding that we—that would pay back to the Nation and in 

terms of Government revenues a hundredfold. 

One is the need to support at a modest level what’s called 

STRONGER or the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations. This is very important because the States are 

both the frontline and the backbone of regulation, and this enhances their performance. Similar support should be provided to 

the Ground Water Protection Council. The other refers to what 

both the Chairman and the Ranking Member discussed in terms of 

technology. 

The second is to provide targeted Federal R and D support in developing the technologies that address the environmental issues 

and promote continuous improvement and best practices. This includes the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America. 

These are both very small sums of money but these investments 

would pay, as we concluded, enormous returns first and foremost 

in meeting the environmental objectives and facilitating the great 

potential that’s been identified as shale gas would contribute to energy security, economic development and job creation. As a result 

of all of this, generate a lot of revenues that would flow to the Federal Government, to State and local governments. 

So thank you very much for the opportunity to join this morning 

and to my colleagues. 

[The prepared statement of Yergin follows:] 
6 

1Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Shale Gas Production Subcommittee 90 Day Report, US 

Department of Energy, August 18, 2011. 2Daniel Yergin, The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World (New 

York: Penguin, 2011), Chapter 16, ‘‘The Natural Gas Revolution’’ (www.danielyergin.com) 3 John Deutch, ‘‘The Good News about Gas,’’ Foreign Affairs, January—February 2011. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL YERGIN, CHAIRMAN, IHS CAMBRIDGE ENERGY

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Senate Energy committee for 

this discussion of what we learned from the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board 

Subcommittee 90-Day Report on shale gas production.1

I am Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. I 

am the author of a new book, The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of 

the Modern World, which describes the development of shale gas, among other topics.2

It was a privilege to serve on this Subcommittee, which was constituted in January 2011. The Subcommittee was tasked with developing a study report by President Obama in his March 31, 2011, speech, in which he declared that ‘‘recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves-perhaps a century’s 

worth’’ of shale. In order to facilitate this development, ensure environmental protection, and meet public concerns, he instructed Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to 

have this subcommittee address the safety and environmental performance of shale 

gas production. 

We focused on three major environmental concerns: water quality, air quality, and 

community impact. Our conclusion is that the need for environmental protection can 

be met if approached properly. To that end, we made 20 recommendations regarding 

best practices, technological innovation, and regulatory processes. 

We do so with the recognition that almost overnight, in energy terms, shale gas 

has become a major and critical national resource. Two years ago, the very concept 

of shale gas was hardly known, either in the Nation or in Washington DC, and even 

the spelling of ‘‘fracking’’—or ‘‘fraccing,’’ or ‘‘fracing’’—has been a subject of dispute. 

Today shale gas accounts for about 30 percent of total US natural gas production, 

and this is expected to rise dramatically in the foreseeable future. Natural gas itself 

is one of the backbones of our economy, providing about a quarter of the country’s 

total energy. 

This abundance of natural gas is very different from what was expected a half 

decade ago. It was then anticipated that constraints on domestic natural gas production would result in high prices for consumers and the migration of gas-using industries-and the jobs that go with them-out of the United States to parts of the world 

with cheaper supplies. The United States was also expected to be importing substantial amounts of natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG). That 

would have added as much as $100 billion to our trade deficit. 

None of that has occurred...

Instead, 

• The United States has become, except for imports from Canada, mostly self-sufficient save for some LNG imported to cope with pipeline constraints and 

seasonality. 

• Gas prices have fallen substantially, lowering the cost of gas-generated electricity and home heating bills. 

• Several hundred thousand jobs have been created in the United States. 

• Gas-consuming industries have invested billions of dollars in factories in the 

United States, something which they would not have expected to do half a decade ago-creating new jobs in the process. 

• The development of shale has created significant new revenue sources for 

states-for the state of Pennsylvania and localities in that state, for example, 

$1.1 billion in revenues in 2010. 

Shale gas-the unconventional natural gas revolution-has been called the biggest 

energy innovation of the past few decades. The chairman of our Subcommittee, Professor John Deutch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has described 

shale gas as responsible for ’’perhaps the biggest shift in energy-reserve estimates 

in the last half century.’’3

The new National Petroleum Study Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential 

of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources, submitted to the Sec-
7 

4 National Petroleum Council, Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential of North America’s Natural Gas and Oil Resources, Report Submitted to the Secretary of Energy on September 

15, 2011. 

retary of Energy on September 15, details what it describes as the ’’surprising’’ upward reassessment in US oil and gas resources-the result of technological advance.4

Shale gas only burst into public view in 2008 and 2009. Yet as I describe in The 

Quest, this was the result of a quarter century of technological development and 

progress and innovation-a process that had involved much disappointment and trial 

and error until the end of the 1990’s. 

In the past few years, the rapid development of shale gas has also created environmental concerns and issues, which are the topic of our report. Commercial development of shale gas had begun in traditional oil and gas-producing states. But these 

concerns became much more visible when development spread into the ’’Mighty 

Marcellus’’—that is, the Marcellus Shale that is found in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New York State. Although western Pennsylvania had been the birthplace 

of the oil and gas industry, that was a long time ago and under very different conditions. In modern times, this was a new activity, particularly on this scale, and in 

a more densely populated region. 

My Subcommittee colleagues will speak about the specific environmental issues 

and how to mitigate them. These concern water quality, air quality, and community 

impact. Professor Steven Holditch, chairman of the petroleum engineering department at Texas A&M, has 40 years’ experience with the science of hydraulic fracturing. Mark Zoback, professor of earth sciences and geophysics at Stanford University, is an expert on the forces in the earth that control geologic processes. And 

Kathleen McGinty was Secretary for Environmental Protection for the State of 

Pennsylvania and served as chair of the White House Council on Environmental 

Quality. 

Altogether, as noted, the report contains 20 specific recommendations about these 

issues. One of the starting points is the need for much more complete measurement 

of water quality, air quality, and specifically methane. Many of the recommendations focus on best practices and technical innovation. They also emphasize the importance of community engagement and the need for disclosure and transparency. 

They recognize the central role of state regulation in this arena. 

As Professor John Deutch wrote to the committee: ’’The Subcommittee believes 

that these recommendations, if implemented, combined with a continuing focus on 

and clear commitment to measurable progress in introducing best practices based 

on technical innovation and field experience, represent important steps toward 

meeting public concerns and ensuring that the nation’s resources are being responsibly developed.’’ 

We came at this report from a variety of perspectives and, as we examined the 

issues and listened to public testimony, came to a consensus on our recommendations. 

But there are a couple of recommendations that I would like to highlight. We recognize the difficult decisions that have to be made about the Federal budget and 

the challenges this creates for both the Congress and the Administration. But there 

are two areas of modest funding that would pay back to the nation-and government 

revenues-many hundredfold. 

The first is to support at a modest-level STRONGER-the State Review of Oil and 

Natural Gas Environmental Regulations. This is very valuable because the states 

are both the frontline and the backbone of regulation. Similar support should be 

provided to the Ground Water Protection Council. 

The second is to provide Federal R&D support on developing the technologies that 

address the environmental issues and promote continuous improvement and best 

practices. This includes support for the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for 

America. 

These two investments would pay enormous returns, first and foremost in meeting environmental objectives and facilitating the achievement of the great potential 

of shale gas, and by so doing would contribute to energy security, economic development, and job creation-and, as a result of all this, generate considerable revenue 

flows to Federal , state, and local governments. 

Dr. Daniel Yergin is chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. His 

new book The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World has 

just been published (www.danielyergin.com). The Quest addresses the natural gas 

revolution in Chapter 16. 

Dr. Yergin is a member of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. He previously 

chaired a US Department of Energy Task Force on Energy R&D. He is a member 

of the National Petroleum Council and vice chair of its new study Prudent Develop-
8 

ment: Realizing the Potential of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources. 

Dr. Yergin received the Pulitzer Prize for his book The Prize: the Epic Quest for 

Oil, Money and Power. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Holditch, why don’t you go right ahead? 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. HOLDITCH, P.E., DEPARTMENT 

HEAD, PETROLEUM ENGINEERING, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, 

COLLELGE STATION, TX 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Thank you and good morning. I’m very pleased 

to be here. 

Shale gas is for real. Shale gas currently supplies about 30 percent of the natural gas we use in the United States. A Department 

of Energy report in 2009 and recent developments that have occurred since then seem to say there’s over 900 TCF of technically 

recoverable resource just in the shale gas plays that have been developed over the last 5 or 10 years. Not all of this 900 TCS—TCF 

of technically recoverable gas is economically recoverable, but the 

way to convert it from technically recoverable to economically recoverable is to increase the technology used to extract the gas so 

that we can get more gas out per well and reduce the cost per well. 

We do that with—with research. 

It’s clear to me that the United States has a real opportunity to 

develop its unconventional gas reservoirs, shale gas, tight gas and 

coal bed methane to dramatically improve the energy security of 

the United States. The U.S. can use the abundance of natural gas 

to generate electricity and we can use it for motor fuel which would 

reduce oil imports. Natural gas should be used with wind, solar 

and geothermal to create a clean energy package for the electric 

grid because when the wind’s not blowing and the sun’s not shining, you need the natural gas to supplement the electricity. So it’s 

a—it’s a—it’s not wind or solar or natural gas, it’s all 3 combined 

is what we have to do. 

However, shale gas development must be done correctly. In our 

90-day report, we recognized there are real issues with water, air, 

air emissions, and community impact and these must be addressed 

by the oil and gas community. I think we all agree on the committee and—and most folks do. You can’t really improve something 

that you can’t measure. So our committee has—has recommendations in there on—on what we need to do to improve our measurements, and from that we’ll have data to improve our actions. 

If you read recent news articles on hydraulic fracturing, the process is often described as pumping in a mixture of water and toxic 

chemicals under high pressure under the earth. This description is 

far from the truth. Most fracture treatments consist of 99.5 percent 

pure water and sand, and only 0.5 percent of what we pump in the 

ground are chemicals. Many of these chemicals are gelling agents 

to increase the viscosity, surfactants and bactericides. The—the 

gelling agents are just thickening agents like guar gum, which is 

used in a lot of food products. Surfactants are just your Dawn dishwasher liquid. The biocides are just the Clorox, the same chemicals 

we have in our homes. So these chemical are pumped in the 
9 

ground. They are needed but they’re in very minute quantities and 

they’re really not all that—that dangerous on their own. 

But the SEAB subcommittee, we recommended that the industry 

should measure and post on a publicly available Website the volume and the composition of what’s being pumped in the ground. 

Then we should measure and determine the volume and the composition of what flows out of the well. The industry should track 

the water from the time it’s—it’s initially collected until it’s finally 

disposed of. We need to be collecting the information on what goes 

in the ground, what comes out of the ground because then we’ll 

know exactly what’s happening, and if there are—they’ll more than 

likely there won’t be issue but if there are issues, we’ve measured 

them and we can fix them. 

In my opinion, currently drilling and hydraulic fracturing activity in the shale gas does not really affect drinking water aquifers. 

I’ve been working on hydraulic fracturing for over 40 years. My 

master’s thesis in 1970 was on hydraulic fracturing of low permeability gas reservoirs, and there’s absolutely no evidence that fractures can grow from miles under the ground up to the surface to 

the aquifers. 

So I think we—we just really need to concentrate on—on what 

the issues are and deal with them. As you might expect from a university professor, I can see a number of areas where additional research would be useful. There’s a lot of information in our report, 

which I will not cover, but let me just mention a few bullet points 

on some of those research areas. 

We need to improve the technologies used to clean water that is 

produced from the ground so that it can be—we can remove the impurities and reuse the water. There’s a lot of companies actually 

working on that right now. 

We need to improve the chemistry of the fracture fluid additives 

so that we can use saline water rather than fresh water so we’re 

not computing with other uses for fresh water. 

We need to continue the development of microseismic technology 

to remotely map these fractures and—and know what they’re 

doing. As my colleague said, we recommend continued funding of 

organizations such as STRONGER and FracFocus.org. At Texas A 

and M University, we have a project called Environmental Friendly 

Drilling which is partially funded by the Research Partnership to 

Secure Energy for America. If the Environmental Friendly program 

is doing all the right things in emissions testing, clean up technology of produced fluids, and they even have a project on developing disappearing roads. So additional funding to this Environmental Friendly Drilling program or other programs like that 

could—could make a successful program—program and improve it 

measurably. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holditch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. HOLDITCH, P.E., DEPARTMENT HEAD, PETROLEUM ENGINEERING, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE STATION, TX 

Good Morning. I am Stephen A. Holditch and I am the Head of the Department 

of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M University. I am serving on the Secretary 

of Energy’s Advisory Board Shale Gas Subcommittee. I have been working on how 

to develop low permeability, unconventional gas reservoirs using hydraulic frac-
10 

1Tcf is the terminology for Trillion Cubic Feet at standard pressure and temperature. 

2OGIP refers to the original volume of gas contained in a reservoir before production begins. 

Using current technology, and disregarding costs, prices, and other investment criteria, the proportion of OGIP that can be technically produced is called Technically Recoverable Resouosrces 

(TRR). TRR is gas that we know where the gas is located and we have developed the technology 

to produce the gas; however, the gas may or may not be economic to produce under existing 

gas prices of drilling costs. TRR is also gas that can be produced but no pipeline exists to market 

the natural gas. When the economic conditions allow the natural gas to be produced at a profit, 

a portion of TRR can be economically produced and is referred to as Economically Recoverable 

Resources (ERR). ERR is usually booked as proved reserves. TRR can be thought of as possible 

or probable reserves. OGIP is the total resource base. 

turing since 1970. The following testimony represents only my views of the issues 

and my interpretation of what the report suggests. This testimony does not speak 

for the other members of the subcommittee. 

Shale gas is for real 

Shale gas currently supplies around 30 percent of the natural gas we use in the 

United States. A Department of Energy Report in 2009, and recent developments 

suggests that new Shale Gas Development in the last 10 years has added over 900 

Tcf1 of Technically Recoverable Resources (TRR) from Shale Gas.2 Not all of the 900 

Tcf is currently Economically Recoverable Resources (ERR), but under the correct 

cost and price structure, much of it can be converted from TRR to ERR. Research 

into new drilling and completion technology is needed to increase shale gas recovery. 

In 1997, Rogner estimated the gas in place in Shale reservoirs worldwide was over 

16,000 Tcf. On the basis of the research we have conducted at Texas A&M University, we think the number should be closer to 50,000 Tcf of gas in place in Shale 

reservoirs worldwide. 

It is clear to me that the United States has a real opportunity to develop it’s unconventional gas reservoirs (shale gas, coal gas and tight gas) to dramatically improve the energy security in the United States. The U.S. can use the abundance of 

Natural Gas to generate electricity and for motor fuel, which should reduce oil imports. Natural gas should be used with wind, solar, and geothermal energy to create 

a clean energy package for the electric grid. 

In addition, the same technology we are using in Shale Gas reservoirs, namely 

horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, are currently being used in South 

Texas, West Texas, the Bakken Formation in Wyoming and North Dakota, and most 

recently in Ohio to increase oil production in the United States. Oil production in 

the Lower 48 states has increased during the past year for the first time in decades. 

Shale gas development must be done correctly 

The oil and gas industry understands, and the SEAB Subcommittee Shale Gas 

Production 90-Day Report clearly states, that there are real issues with water, air 

emissions, and community impact that must be addressed by the oil and gas companies. The SEAB Subcommittee suggested that the industry should improve what it 

measures and disclose all non-proprietary data on publically available websites. I 

am of the opinion that ‘you cannot improve what you do not measure’. 

In my testimony today, I will deal with water issues, air quality issues and research that could help improve the development of shale gas. 

Water and Fracture Fluids 

If you read recent news articles on hydraulic fracturing, the process is often described as pumping in a mixture of water and toxic chemicals under high pressure. 

This description is far from the truth. Most fracture treatment fluids consist of 99.5 

percent percent pure water and sand. About 0.5% of the fluid is made up of gelling 

agents, surfactants, and biocides. Virtually all of these chemicals can be found in 

a typical home. Gelling agents are typically guar gum, which is used in many food 

products to viscosify the product. A surfactant is just soap, like Dawn dishwashing 

fluid. Biocides are use to kill bacteria, like the Clorox we use in our homes. Granted, 

we do not want to drink these fluids, but they are all found in our homes. However, 

the concentration of these ‘chemicals’ is very minute and does not pose a danger to 

fresh water aquifers, if the field operations are conducted properly. 

The SEAB Subcommittee recommended that the industry should measure and 

post on a publically available website 

• the volume and composition of what is pumped into the wells during fracturing 

operations, 

• the volume and composition of what flows back to the surface during clean up 

operations, and 
11 

• the industry should track water movement from initial collection to final disposal. 

The SEAB Subcommittee also believes the industry should take baseline measurements of all water wells in the vicinity of any shale gas well prior to drilling. In 

fact, most operators already do this. 

It is my opinion that current drilling and hydraulic fracturing activity does not 

adversely affect shallow drinking water aquifers. I have been working in hydraulic 

fracturing for 40+ years and there is absolutely no evidence hydraulic fractures can 

grow from miles below the surface to the fresh water aquifers. However, for other 

reasons, there could be problems in aquifers. If problems do occur in fresh water 

aquifers, then a thorough investigation of the development history in the area needs 

to be conducted to find the problem. Once the problem is understood, it can be fixed. 

Air Emissions 

It appeared to me during the course of the work by the SEAB subcommittee, that 

the issues involving air emissions have not received the same focus as the issues 

involved with water. When you move into a new geographic area to develop shale 

gas, the number of diesel engines used to power drilling rigs and the truck traffic 

involved in the operations can be significant. Again, as with water and fracture 

fluids, it is not possible to make intelligent changes to improve the situation if you 

do not make measurements. In the case of air emissions, we need to do a better 

job of taking base line air quality measurements prior to shale gas development operations, and continue monitoring air quality during and after development. If there 

are no real issues with emissions, fine. If problems are discovered, fine also, because 

now we know and we can take steps to solve the problems. 

We were told that if pad drilling is used to drill 6–8 wells per pad, the truck traffic involved with the operations can be reduced by over 50 percent. Also, in South 

Texas, some companies are converting rigs and trucks to run off of natural gas, 

rather than diesel. There are other issues involving air emissions that others on the 

subcommittee can discuss in more detail. 

Research, Development and Data Bases 

As you might expect from a University Professor, I can see a number of areas 

where additional research would be useful. For brevity, I am including a bulleted 

list of the most important areas. Some of these area are already under development 

by industry, but additional research funding would speed along the technology. 

• We need to improve the technologies used to clean the water produced after a 

fracture treatment to remove impurities and make the water available for reuse. 

• We need to improve the chemistry of the fracture fluid additives so that we can 

use saline water for fracturing rather than fresh water. 

• We need to develop more affordable technology to monitor air quality and methane emissions during the entire life of a shale gas well, from drilling to production. 

• We need to continue development of micro-seismic technology to remotely map 

the hydraulic fractures as they are being created. 

• We recommend the continued funding and development of organizations such 

as Stronger and data bases such as FracFocus.org to allow data from shale gas 

wells to be posted online for any interested party to review. 

• At Texas A&M University, we work in a project called Environmentally Friendly Drilling (EFD) that is funded in part by the DOE through the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) and also by the oil and gas industry. EFD is doing all the right things in terms of air emissions testing, 

cleanup technology for produced fracture fluids, to working on how to build disappearing roads. An increase in funding for EFD could take a successful program and improve it measurably. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ZOBACK. 

STATEMENT OF MARK D. ZOBACK, BENJAMIN M. PAGE, PROFESSOR OF EARTH SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF GEOPHYSICS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, PALO ALTO, CA 

Mr. ZOBACK. Good morning. It—it’s a pleasure to be here and to 

have the opportunity to comment on our subcommittee’s report. 
12 

For about the past 30 years, I’ve been trying to quantify the 

forces in the earth that control earthquakes, hydraulic fracturing 

propagation and other geologic processes. For about the last 5 

years or so, my Ph.D. students and I have been doing research on 

optimizing production from shale gas and shale oil reservoirs. 

To be brief, I’m going to limit my comments to—to 3 topics: 

avoiding gas leakage from wells and potential contamination of 

shallow aquifers, minimizing the use of fresh water during hydraulic fracturing and the handling of the contaminated water that 

flows back out of the well after hydraulic fracturing has been completed. 

Let me say at the outset that like the other members of our committee, I—I personally believe there is no question that shale gas 

resources can be developed in a manner utilizing horizontal drilling 

and multistage hydraulic fracturing that protects the environment 

and minimizes the impact on nearby communities. 

But as everyone knows, there have been a number of accidents 

and incidents associated with shale gas development. These accidents have—have done damage to water supplies, have caused environmental harm and have raised concerns, logically, among the 

public about whether these resources can be developed safely. 

It’s unfortunate that almost everything that has occurred and 

has gone wrong with shale gas development has been referred to 

as hydraulic fracturing. As Dr. Holditch just testified, the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are relatively benign, steps are 

being taken to make them even safer and our committee recommends full disclosure of the composition of hydraulic fracturing 

fluids. 

What is important to emphasize is that the most important step 

that can be taken to prevent gas leakage and to prevent surface 

aquifers now and in the future is good well construction. A well 

that is improperly cased and cemented has the potential to leak 

gas whether it is hydraulically fractured or not. It is critical for 

State and Federal regulators to work closely with private industry 

to design and construct optimally secure wells with multiple barriers of casing in cement to prevent gas leakage and to protect 

water supplies over the potential 20 to 30 year lifetime of these 

wells. 

The second point I wanted to make concerns conservation of 

water resources. As millions of gallons of fresh water are utilized 

in each well that is hydraulically fractured, it’s possible to make 

significant advances to conserve water resources by carrying out 

fewer hydraulic fractures in a given well and by pumping smaller 

volumes. These are, again, areas where research would have a 

major payoff. 

As Dr. Holditch pointed out, in many parts of the country industry has moved to drilling multiple wells from a single pad. Pad 

drilling not only greatly improves the efficiency and—of drilling 

and fracturing operations, it minimizes land use, lowers the overall 

impact of drilling operations on local communities and makes regional planning easier to lessen the cumulative impact of shale gas 

development activities in any given area. 

In some cases, pad drilling creates the opportunity for temporary 

pipelines to be used instead of having to truck all the water in. In 
13 

one case I know about in Canada, water wells were drilled into 

deep saline aquifers to provide the drilling pad with enough low 

quality water, water that was unfit for domestic consumption or irrigation, to carry out 150 hydraulic fracturing operations. The flow 

back water was then returned to the saline aquifers and no fresh 

water was used at all. 

The third and final point I’d like to make concerns the water that 

flows back after hydraulic fracturing. In some cases, very little 

water flows back; in other cases, as much as 25 to 50 percent of 

the injected water flows back contaminated with brine, metals and 

potentially dangerous chemicals that are actually picked up in the 

shale itself. 

As Dr. Holditch mentioned, our committee has recommended 

that the volume, composition and disposition of these waters be 

carefully monitored and disclosed via publicly available Websites. 

Our committee has also noted the recycling of hydraulic fracturing 

fluid, which is especially prevalent in the Northeast, is a welcome 

development and will hopefully be used more and more throughout 

the industry. Reuse of flow back water avoids a number of potential problems associated with transport and injection of the—as 

well as the expense and extensive water treatments, so again, another area where research and development would have a big payoff. 

So as we said in the conclusion of our subcommittee’s 90-day report, the public deserves assurance that the full economic, environmental and energy security benefits of shale gas development will 

be realized without sacrificing public health, environmental protection and safety. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the 

committee this morning. I personally believe we are well on our 

way to identifying the kinds of actions needed to provide the public 

with—with this type of assurance. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zoback follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK D. ZOBACK, BENJAMIN M. PAGE, PROFESSOR OF

EARTH SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF GEOPHYSICS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, PALO

ALTO, CA 

My name is Mark Zoback, I am a Professor of Geophysics at Stanford University 

and a member of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board Shale Gas Subcommittee. For your general information, I am also serving on a National Academy 

of Engineering committee that has been investigating the Deepwater Horizon accident. My field of expertise is in quantifying the forces in the earth that control 

earthquakes, hydraulic fracture propagation and other geologic processes. I started 

doing research on hydraulic fracturing over 30 years ago and my PhD students and 

I have been carrying out a number of collaborative research projects, mostly with 

private industry, to better understand how to optimize production from shale gas 

reservoirs. 

As you have had the opportunity to read our 90-day report and you’ve already 

heard from Professor Holditch, there are only a few additional points I’d like to 

make. In fact, I will limit my comments to issues related to three topics—avoiding 

gas leakage from wells and potential contamination of shallow aquifers, minimizing 

the use of fresh water during hydraulic fracturing, and the handling of the contaminated water that flows-back out of shale gas wells after hydraulic fracturing. 

Let me say at the outset that like the other members of our subcommittee, I believe that utilization of domestic shale gas and, as Dr. Holditch mentioned, domestic 

shale oil, resources are extremely important to our nation. I personally believe that 

there is no question that they can be developed in a manner (utilizing horizontal 

drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing) that protects the environment and 
14 

minimizes impact on nearby communities. Moreover, because of the abundance of 

gas and oil resources found in organic-rich shales globally, the standards and procedures we use to develop these resources in an environmentally responsible way in 

the United States could have far-reaching affects. 

Preventing Gas Leakage and Water Contamination 

As everyone knows, there have been a number of accidents during shale gas development operations. These accidents have caused damage to water supplies and 

understandably have raised concerns among the public about whether shale gas can 

be developed safely. It is unfortunate, however, that the concern about the safety 

of shale gas development has focused almost entirely on hydraulic fracturing. As Dr. 

Holditch testified, the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids are relatively 

benign, steps are being taken to make them even safer, and our committee recommends full disclosure of the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids. What is 

important to emphasize is that the most important step that can be taken to prevent gas leakage and protect subsurface aquifers, now and in the future, is good 

well construction. A well that is improperly cased and cemented has the potential 

to leak gas whether it is hydraulically fractured or not. It is critical for state and 

Federal regulators to work closely with private industry to design and construct optimally secure wells, with multiple barriers of casing and cement to prevent gas 

leakage and to protect water supplies over the potential 20–30 year lifetime of these 

wells. This is one area where groups such as STRONGER (the State Review of Oil 

and Natural Gas Environmental Regulation) might be particularly helpful. 

Conservation of Water Resources 

The second point I want to make concerns conservation of water resources, as millions of gallons of fresh water are utilized during multi-stage hydraulic fracturing 

in every shale gas well that is drilled. It is possible that significant advances can 

be made to conserve of water resources by carrying out fewer hydraulic fractures 

in a given well and by pumping smaller volumes. 

As Dr. Holditch pointed-out, in most parts of the country industry has moved to 

drilling multiple wells from a single pad. As he said, pad drilling not only greatly 

improves the efficiency of drilling and fracturing operations, it minimizes land-use, 

lowers the overall impact of drilling operations on local communities and makes regional planning easier to lessen the cumulative impact of shale gas development activities in a given area. In some cases pad drilling creates the opportunity for temporary pipelines to be used to provide water (instead of trucking it in) and in one 

case that I know about in Canada, water wells were drilled into a deep saline aquifer to provide a drilling pad with enough low quality water, unfit for domestic consumption or irrigation, to carry out 150 hydraulic fracturing operations. 

Dealing with Flow-Back Water 

The third point I want to make concerns the water that flows back after hydraulic 

fracturing. While the amount of flow-back water after fracturing varies from region 

to region, 25–50 percent of injected water flows back in some areas and can be contaminated with brine, metals and potentially dangerous chemicals picked up from 

the shale. As Dr. Holditch mentioned, our committee has recommended that the volume, composition and disposition of these waters be carefully monitored and disclosed via a publicly available website. Our committee also noted that the re-cycling 

of flow-back water for use in subsequent hydraulic fracturing operations, is becoming increasingly more common in the northeast, is a welcome development. Re-use 

of flow-back water avoids a number of potential problems associated with transport 

and injection or the expense and difficulty of extensive water treatment operations. 

This too is an area where research and development could be particularly valuable. 

As we said in the Conclusion of our sub-committee’s 90–day report: The public deserves assurance that the full economic, environmental and energy security benefits 

of shale gas development will be realized without sacrificing public health, environmental protection and safety. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to your 

committee today. I personally believe we are on our way to identifying the kinds 

of actions needed to provide this assurance. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Kathleen McGinty, we’re glad to have you here. Go right ahead. 
15 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN A. McGINTY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC GROWTH, 

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC., WEST CHESTER, PA 

Ms. MCGINTY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

It’s a pleasure to join you and my fellow task force members as 

well. 

As its been said, shale gas is a game changer economically in 

terms of the promise of air quality benefits in the production of energy, especially electricity and also, I think in a positive way in 

terms of geopolitics, around energy. 

Shale gas, though, is an industrial activity and so there are impacts. Our conclusions were that those impacts could be managed. 

To say they could be is not to say they are managed. It’s to say 

that this is not a once-and-done. But with all stakeholders vigilant 

and participating through a process that would emphasize measurement, disclosure, inclusion and continuous improvement that we 

can see the production and the benefits of this resource to our environment and economy without the attendant negative consequences 

that have been of concern. 

So for example on water, as has been referenced, our conclusion 

was that contrary to common perception, frack fluids per se are 

very unlikely to contaminate drinking water. However, the methane being unleashed from the shale formation can migrate into 

those drinking water resources. So 2 things that we talk about in 

the report important to that. One, upfront characterization of the 

geology; in my home State of Pennsylvania, critically important. 

Why? Because shale operations are unfolding where we have had 

historic well development long before any standards were in place, 

and so the methane can find those old pathways and travel 

through them. 

The second thing important is what Dr. Zoback referred to in 

terms of proper well casing and cementing. Put those measures together and the chance of methane contaminating drinking water 

dramatically reduces. 

Air quality, there too, a potential significant benefit as natural 

gas powers and provides electricity. However Senator Barrasso, 

even in places, rural places we’ve wound up with L.A.-style smog 

resulting from some of the intensity of these operations. Now is 

that not manageable? It is manageable. In States like Wyoming 

and Colorado have really stepped up and, in fact, have already dramatically taken on this challenge through 2 or 3 important measures. 

So with respect to conventional air pollutants, significant 

progress in fuel switching in terms of engines, in terms of trucking, 

in terms of efforts that can clean up the power sources used at the 

well-sites. Filters being deployed on equipment to reduce particulate matter that otherwise becomes part of a pollution challenge. 

A significant movement toward something that’s being referred 

as green completions. Now, this can be challenging from an infrastructure point of view because what’s required is to have the gathering and some of the midstream pipeline infrastructure in place 

at the time of well completion. Important to air quality because the 

methane pollution that’s of concern seems to happen mostly just at 
16 

that time of well completion. So if that methane, instead of being 

vented or flared can be captured and put to productive use, one, 

there’s an economic upside to capturing that resource. Two, it very 

significantly takes on the methane problem otherwise of concern. 

Third, we looked at community impacts, quality of life and the— 

the cumulative impact of significant industrial activity where it 

was not common practice. Here too, efforts can improve the situation, especially through several initiatives. One is better sharing of 

information. The variety of States already do collect almost on a 

well by well basis significant information about how much water is 

being used at that well, what the production profile has been at 

that well. States are moving now to also note whether there have 

been violations of environmental regulations associated with that 

well. 

What we found, though, is the data bases don’t talk to each other 

very well. They can be intimidating or difficult for a community to 

access. So investment in those data bases to answer the public’s 

questions about the performance of those wells, very important. 

Last I’ll just highlight, again, in bolstering the public’s confidence 

baseline data to see, what was the condition of air quality and 

water quality before shale activities started? Sometimes that’s an 

eye opener in terms of historic challenges that are there before 

shale operations. 

Finally, finally what we have seen is when the process is open 

and neighbors get to participate in the permitting and in the welcoming of these operations, a lot of the issues with respect to quality of life can be handled straight on, and enable the industry to 

grow in a way that is fully welcomed by the community. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinty follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN A. MCGINTY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND

MANAGING DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC GROWTH, WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. WEST CHESTER, PA 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee: My name is Kathleen McGinty. I 

am Senior Vice President of Weston Solutions, Inc. an environmental company focused on and investing in sustainable property redevelopment, clean energy and 

clean water. Previously I was Secretary of Environmental Protection for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. It is an honor to appear before you today and to join my colleagues 

who served with me on the Secretary of Energy’s task force on shale gas. 

The task force is gratified by the largely positive response to our work. There are 

some corrections and some amplifications that are in order as we take our interim 

report to final, but many commentators have emphasized the need for implementation and their own intention to move forward. In this testimony I am pleased to 

share with you the key issues we identified and the best practices we recognized 

as effective in addressing those issues. 

THE RESOURCE AND THE INDUSTRY 

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by underscoring the point made by my colleagues in 

their prepared testimony: shale gas resources are abundant in the United States. 

Shale gas has already generated significant economic opportunity, substantially 

changed the equation with respect to energy security, and has begun to reshape 

electricity markets in a way that offers air quality benefits. This point with respect 

to the robustness of the resource, while perhaps evident, bears stating. Even until 

quite recently questions were presented as to whether shale wells might produce in 

a robust manner initially, but then decline rapidly, or alternatively, if they would 

have staying power. Experience to date in the field shows a very strong pattern of 

production. 
17 

As my colleagues have also noted, with the production of this resource comes environmental and quality of life issues that are real and demanding of attention. Simply put, shale gas production is an industrial activity. As such, it will have impacts 

that need to be managed with seriousness of purpose and enduring commitment. 

In our report, we offer a framework to guide efforts to minimize adverse effects: 

practices and impacts should be Measured and Disclosed, and performance must be 

Continuously Improved. 

WATER 

The quantity of water consumed in shale operations is modest compared with 

other water uses and is typically a small fraction of total water consumed in a given 

area. Still, shale operations consume water in quantities significantly greater than 

conventional gas operations (an order of magnitude greater), and the continued 

growth of the industry means that its demand for water will similarly continue to 

grow. A conservation-oriented approach toward water then is appropriate and important. 

Our task force found that the recycling of produced and flowback water is an increasingly common practice in the shale industry and a positive step in managing 

water needs. Getting to the next level of treatment and eventual discharge of fluids 

(meeting discharge standards) is harder. Many companies are active in the space 

and much innovation is occurring around the development of mobile treatment platforms. Yet, the economics are difficult, particularly in areas where water resources 

are abundant and/or where there is the option of disposing used water in underground injection wells. It seems that some financial, regulatory and/or resource 

availability driver will be needed to support adoption of this next level of water 

treatment and conservation. 

Water quality—in addition to water quantity—concerns apply to shale operations. 

Much has been said about the composition of fracturing fluids in this regard and 

our task force called for full, with modest exception for truly proprietary information. 

Much attention has also been trained on the fear that fracturing can and has contaminated drinking water. Here, our conclusions diverge from common perception. 

We found that shoddy shale operations can adversely impact water quality in at 

least two key ways I will discuss here. Yet, fracturing per se seems not to be the 

culprit. 

Instead, the two leading areas of concern are: well development, and surface handling of water. 

My colleague Dr. Zoback has spoken to the need for robust practice in well casing 

and cementing in order to prevent methane migration from the gas formation to 

ground water. T his is ‘‘job one’’ and perhaps ‘‘first among equals’’ of the measures 

that can ensure water-safe operations. 

Other best practices related to this should be highlighted as well. In our report 

we spoke about the need for rigorous geologic and hydrologic characterization in advance of and during well drilling. The goal here is to discover potential communication pathways and vulnerable water resources. In my home state of Pennsylvania, 

these practices have been found to be particularly important since shale activity is 

unfolding in areas that historically have seen extensive mineral extraction activity, 

with wells and mines developed before modern standards were in place and abandoned without proper closing and capping. Moreover, alluvial and other ‘‘tricky’’ formations have been encountered that could enable migration. Indeed, long before 

shale operations commenced, methane detection and management has been a significant concern in many communities across the commonwealth as homes and businesses have dealt with sometimes explosive levels of methane, fugitive from these 

historic operations. Advanced characterization of the soil, rock and water as well as 

techniques such as microseizmic testing, the use of cement bond logs, and the onsite 

presence of individuals with expertise in ‘‘reading muds’’ (and knowing if problem 

areas are being encountered) are best practices in ensuring against the escape of 

methane and other contaminants. 

As noted, our task force found that surface operations are as important as practices ‘‘down hole’’ in preventing water contamination. We had the opportunity to 

visit well operations that are demonstrative of the state-of-the-art. It is evident that 

conventional measures designed to protect against erosion and sedimentation (silt 

fences and the like) are not sufficient at well sites. Instead, at sites we visited, special mats are being deployed to cover the well pad area; double berms are being 

built; and catchment areas are being put in place to trap fluids and muds, fuels and 

spills so they do not run off. 

These measures and one other are important in protecting surface resources and 

in bolstering the public’s confidence: disclosure of produced water composition and 
18 

tracking of and disclosure of the disposition of produced and flowback water. Our 

task force’s recommendations in this regard build on the movement in industry and 

by regulators to disclose fracturing fluids. We think that knowing what is coming 

out of the well (in addition to what is going in) is important, so we call for disclosure 

of what is produced. We also think that knowing where the fluids go during their 

life cycle is important. So, we identify the tracking and manifesting of shale fluids 

as a best practice. 

AIR 

Air quality is an issue growing in importance in shale operations. Wyoming and 

Colorado have moved forward with significant requirements to stem polluting practices, and U.S. EPA has proposed new regulations as well. 

Here’s what we found: two types of pollution challenges present with respect to 

shale operations. Conventional pollutants like volatile organics and oxides of nitrogen combine to cause ozone problems in some areas. A second problem relates to 

the greenhouse gas impact from the methane, itself. 

On the first, initiatives are underway by some in industry and by regulators to 

clean up emissions from generating equipment, compressor stations, and the like, 

even as filtering equipment is recommended to capture particulates, and some are 

switching from diesel to gas to power operations and potentially to run vehicles. 

The greenhouse gas impact of methane is a different story. Methane is a potent 

greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is some 21 times that of carbon dioxide. The methane/greenhouse gas problem largely occurs at the time of well 

completion and is caused by the venting of those first pulses of methane produced 

by the fractured formation, before the well is either shut in or fully operational (and 

tied to the mid- and downstream- transmission network). (Fugitive methane from 

processing and transportation infrastructure can add to this greenhouse gas pollution impact). 

Some operators flare this gas. This is a better approach than venting from a 

greenhouse gas perspective (since the methane is then converted to carbon dioxide). 

However, pollution is still a concern with combustion, and neighbors often do not 

like the sight of the flares. Moreover, there is economic loss of the gas, itself with 

flaring. 

‘‘Green completions’’ incorporate measures into the well completion process that 

address this problem. Specifically, in green completions, gas and hydrocarbon liquids are physically separated from other fluids and delivered directly into equipment that holds or transports the hydrocarbons for productive use. There is no venting or flaring. This practice then links upstream activities with mid- and 

dowstream- efforts, a practice that works well in some areas but will require acceleration of effort in other areas to permit and build the needed gathering and distribution infrastructure. Several states and EPA are calling for green completions 

in their regulations. 

A final piece to the air issue that we dealt with in our report relates to the life 

cycle carbon footprint of methane. Relatively little analysis has been done to date 

and the studies that are out there differ significantly in their conclusions. The questions center on how much methane becomes fugitive from shale operations and the 

associated downstream equipment, as well as how to understand the methane impact when it is used in power plants and other equipment that might be more efficient than equipment burning other fuel sources. Some studies take this end use 

into account and come up with a positive assessment of methane’s greenhouse gas 

performance, others do not and reach a different conclusion. We therefore call for 

an effort to collect data in a robust and systematic way and then to report out results after rigorous peer review. The task force is encouraged to see that some Industry and environmental groups are already at work looking at how best to build 

an effort of this nature. 

COMMUNITIES, QUALITY OF LIFE AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT 

The task force heard testimony from individuals who were grateful for the employment opportunity shale development had offered them, particularly in the economic downturn the country has suffered. Others had strongly negative or mixed 

views. Concerns often centered around quality of life in towns that had not been 

the scene of intensive industrial activity prior to shale production. Truck traffic, 

noise, and the pollution issues addressed above were among the most common complaints. Concern was also heard from neighbors and from conservation groups that 

habitat was being fragmented with adverse impact on wildlife, or sensitive streams 

were threatened. 

Our task force felt that it is extremely important to address these concerns. We 

recommended four kinds of approaches that are needed to deal respectfully and ef-
19 

fectively with concerns that are legitimate and heartfelt and to bolster the public’s 

confidence that the industry is conducting itself responsibly. 

First, information disclosure and effective sharing of information: here, the task 

force recognized that there already are repositories of data that speak to the industry’s performance. Some of those data bases (for example, some of the information 

collected by states), are hard to access or complex in their presentation of data. We 

recommend investment in efforts that systematize and simplify the availability of 

this information. 

Meanwhile, we found that the initiative ‘‘FracFocus’’ (www.fracfocus.org) is very 

effective in the collection and presentation of fracturing fluid data—painstakingly 

reported on a well by well basis. FracFocus has come together in a remarkable way 

and in short order. However, we felt the focus of FracFocus is too narrow and we 

called for a broader array of chemicals to be disclosed on this website (all chemicals, 

not just chemicals of concern to OSHA). At the same time, we heard testimony from 

the Groundwater Protection Council and its associated organizations who have built 

FracFocus that they would like to expand their reach to air emissions and other 

issues of concern. The task force was encouraged by and supportive of this direction 

and would encourage public funding for the effort. 

Second, baseline data: to understand the relative contribution shale activities are 

making to pollution challenges, it is important to understand what air and water 

quality was in a given area before shale production commenced. In some jurisdictions the collection of this data is becoming the norm (e.g. in Pennsylvania since 

the data can be used in defense against a pollution charge), in addition, some industry groups are organizing to collect and disseminate this information. Care can and 

should be taken to protect the privacy of individual homeowners (by releasing data 

in an aggregated fashion, for example). But knowing whether methane in drinking 

water was pre-existing or caused by a shale operation is critical to assessing the real 

impact of this industry and again, to winning the public’s confidence in the industry. 

The task force therefore called for the regular collection and communication of baseline information. 

Third, mechanisms to define and demonstrate continuous improvement by the industry: STRONGER (State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (www.strongerinc.org)) is an effective organization whose reach the task force 

felt should be expanded. This coming together of state regulators, industry and nongovernmental groups in a joint peer review of the adequacy of various state oil and 

gas regulatory programs is an encouraging demonstration of the ability of varied 

stakeholders to find common ground. Moreover it seems that the states who have 

their programs reviewed by STR0NGER take the critiques seriously and implement 

suggested changes. 

STRONGER operates on a very modest budget, however, and is only able to do 

a limited number of reviews at any given time. So the task force recommends increased funding for STRONGER to grow its capabilities. 

At the same time, we thought a new effort by industry, joining together with nongovernmental organizations and experts in government and academia, aimed at defining best practices, tailoring them to the different conditions in different regions 

of the country, and providing metrics through which progress can be measured 

would be an important new initiative. There is much to build on here, including the 

work of the American Petroleum Institute in identifying best practices. Making this 

work more broadly inclusive of stakeholders and experts, making it specifically relevant to the diversity of shale formations, and making it measurable as to outcome 

would do much to ensure progress and bolster confidence. 

And fourth, providing the mechanism for public engagement: the task force encourages jurisdictions to create the space for neighbors to have meaningful voice in 

the process of having the shale industry become present in their community. Different approaches might prove effective here. Upfront engagement and/or in the permitting process might help establish where shale development will be welcomed and 

where it will be discouraged. Discussion of issues like how to manage truck traffic 

to enhance safety (e.g. by avoiding school bus routes) and/or to minimize nuisance, 

might help avoid quality of life concerns. Scientific efforts to define sensitive ecosystems and water bodies can be helpful in gaining agreement among stakeholders 

to protect fragile resources. 

The issues are many and varied and the mechanisms for engagement can be 

equally diverse. However, the task force calls for efforts to enable people and companies to talk and have their respective viewpoints heard, understood, and dealt with 

in meaningful way. 
20 

CONCLUSION 

Shale gas is a game changer in energy with significant promise economically, in 

terms of national security, and in improving environmental quality. Real issues attend this industrial activity however. The task force believes these issues can be 

managed if there is measurement, disclosure, and deep commitment to continuous 

improvement. We are gratified by the largely positive response to our report and 

encouraged especially that individuals and organizations are moving forward to 

identify and implement best practices that ensure the responsible conduct of shale 

operations across the country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you and thank you all for your excellent 

testimony. 

Let me start with 5 minutes of questions, and then we’ll have a 

round of 5 minute questions from the committee here. 

This focus on sound well-casing and cementing that, I think, several of you referred to, Dr. Zoback, I think you had a main point 

on that. I assume that this is not a question of having to do more 

research as to how you properly case and cement a well. People 

know how to do that. The question is: how can you be sure that 

each time a well is drilled, it is properly cased and cemented? I 

would assume that that involves training of drilling operators. Did 

you folks look at that issue and make any recommendations or conclusions about what more is needed to be done in that regard? 

Mr. ZOBACK. Senator, you’re exactly right. This is the—the proper way to drill, case and cement a well is something industry 

knows very well. Whether it’s carried out as well as it should be 

in each and every case is—is—is a—is an open question. 

One of the things our committee called for was the—the proper 

exchange of information and making sure that both industry and 

State regulators were carrying out these operations in the best possible way. So that when there are geologic surprises in a given area 

that would require a—a casing program to be locally adapted, that 

information isn’t just known to one—one operator who’s encountered it. But that information is immediate—immediately made 

known to everyone and the reg—it’s something the regulators look 

for. 

Training of the regulators is—is another important issue and 

how to work with the—the—the companies to make sure that, for 

example, when the casing and—and the cement have been, you 

know, installed they are, in fact, functioning as—as they are designed to function. The types of pressure tests and other tests that 

are done is—is something that takes some degree of training to— 

to interpret and—and to acknowledge whether or not, in fact, the 

well is ready to go. 

So, these are all areas where we thought this—this process of— 

of exchanging information, developing standards and communication between different States and between the companies and the 

regulators in a given place would have—would have a lot of impact. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Let me ask about work the EPA is doing. They 

recently issued draft rules to control air emissions from oil and gas 

production, and transmission and storage. Do these rules go far 

enough in addressing the concerns you talk about in your report or 

are they not relevant to that? What’s your view on that? 

Ms. MCGINTY. Senator, they are very relevant to one aspect of 

the air quality issues. Actually, both those issues with respect to 

air quality that we’ve touched on, both in terms of the ozone-re-
21 

lated air quality issues as well as the methane-related air quality 

issues. The way they go about addressing those challenges is to 

begin to layout a sense of performance measures with respect to 

the equipment that is used at well-sites. They also point to this 

idea or this requirement of green completions to capture that methane pulse that otherwise is vented at the time that the well is completed. 

I think that the measures seem to be the right measures, the 

kind of measures that can and would meaningfully reduce pollution. The—if there’s concern about those measures it’s the—the 

permitting aspects that might be associated with—with the implementation of those measures. So I think that’s still being worked 

through. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me also ask about this. My understanding is 

EPA is doing its own study on the whole issue of hydraulic fracturing and it’s not expected to be out until the spring or summer 

of 2014. How does this—how does what you folks are doing here 

in this current study that you’ve just talked to us about, how does 

that relate to what they’re doing, or is there interaction there? 

Were they involved in any of your—your conclusions? 

Mr. YERGIN. Let me say, certainly we met with EPA. They came 

and to the hearings that we held. We held discussions with them 

to understand what their objectives are. I think Professor Holditch, 

aren’t you involved in the EPA study—— 

Mr. HOLDITCH. No. 

Mr. YERGIN [continuing]. Too? But we were aware that it’s 2014 

is a long time horizon for it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Holditch, did you want to make a comment? 

Go ahead. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Yes, sir. They—the—what they decided to do was 

to take 5 or 6 case histories where there had been reported issues 

with groundwater contamination, and they were going to study 

those in great detail and try to find out exactly what happened. 

They just concluded it was going to take them several years to dig 

into the problems in enough depth to come up with a solution. So 

they’re just looking at some case histories. 

The CHAIRMAN. But—but they’re looking at those case histories 

in order to come up with some general recommendations, or rules, 

or regulations that would apply. Is that right or not? 

Mr. HOLDITCH. I’m not sure what their ultimate goal is. They— 

they’re just trying to find—we have some contaminated freshwater 

aquifers. They’re trying to determine how it was contaminated and 

if it is linked to any shale gas drilling. It could be more than likely 

a bunch of old wells that were drilled 20, 30, 40 years ago could 

be the issue more than the new wells, or it could be things such 

as abandoned mines. So they’re just trying to find out what happened and then I guess based on the basis of that will determine 

what to do next. 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to follow up on that. I’m also told that in addition to the 

EPA fracking study, that BLM is preparing their fracking regs. 

Has there been any coordination with BLM in terms of where 

they’re going, any sharing of the data or information? Dr. Zoback. 
22 

Mr. ZOBACK. Yes, we—we’ve also met with BLM and we discussed with them, in fact, most closely the way in which their inspectors interact with the oil and gas operators on Federal lands. 

So, we’ve been in communication with them and we’re aware of 

what they’re doing and they’re certainly aware of—of our subcommittee’s activities. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I recognize that we’re all looking at where 

the Federal dollars are coming from to do all of these assessments. 

It would certainly seem to make sense that there be some level coordination, or at least sharing of the information there between 

EPA, you and the BLM. 

Let me ask about gap analysis here with what the States are 

doing in terms of regulation and the feds. In the report you, as a 

subcommittee, indicate that you’re not going to weigh-in on whether or not the States or the Federal Government should have the 

lead in regulating natural gas development. 

But just from a practical perspective, wouldn’t it make sense to 

determine first whether or not the States are doing an adequate job 

in terms of the regulation? Or whether the State-Federal mix is 

working? Do we need to basically do some kind of a gap analysis 

here to determine whether the regulations are effective before we 

make recommendations to change any of the regs? This goes out to 

the whole panel here cause I think this is—— 

Mr. HOLDITCH. OK. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. What we want to know here. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Let—let me just say one short thing about it and 

then some of the other panelists. You know, I’ve lived my—worked 

my whole career in—in the State of Texas. The Texas Railroad 

Commission does an extremely well job of—of regulating the oil 

and gas industry. They had—you cannot drill a well and set surface casing without informing the Railroad Commission. You can’t 

pump a cement job without informing the Commission. They do a 

very good job of regulating. 

We also had other regulators from Arkansas, and Colorado, and 

Oklahoma and other States testify in front of us, the—the—the historic oil producing States. They all indicated that they think they’re 

doing a—a very good job too. 

So there might be some States with less history in the oil and 

gas industry who might need to, you know, step up their regulations on oil and gas drilling and completions and permitting. But— 

but the consensus that I—I—I observed from these public meetings 

we had were that—that the—the oil States where a lot of this work 

is going on seems to feel like they’re doing an adequate job of regulating and—and I see no reason to challenge that. 

Mr. YERGIN. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. YERGIN. If I could add to that. To use your phrase ‘‘gap,’’ I 

think there’s a gap in perceptions because I think there’s this view 

that oil and gas activities are not regulated. But, in fact, what I 

was—we were all, I think, very impressed by the quality and the 

focus and the experience, the long experience of the States in terms 

of regulating oil and gas. Even ultimately that responsibility would 

devolve back to them as well. 
23 

So I think Katie McGinty can certainly address Pennsylvania, 

but I think that there’s a very strong tradition—tradition and 

that’s—and that’s really the backbone of it. I think it’s not as wellrecognized, in fact, in some—some circles. So I think there is a— 

a very strong fabric there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that distinction and I’d ask 

you, Ms. McGinty, because Pennsylvania has taken some pretty aggressive steps, in a short period of time whether it’s strengthening 

its water withdrawal regs, strengthening its drilling standards, the 

buffer between operations and streams, or increasing the fees. 

Pennsylvania—— 

Ms. MCGINTY. Right. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Clearly has stepped it up, if 

you will. Was there discussion amongst the subcommittee in terms 

of what, for instance, States like Pennsylvania have done to address the concerns as to whether or not as a State you’re adequately covering all the regulation that’s necessary? 

Ms. MCGINTY. Yes, Senator, you know, I think your original 

question is a good one. At some point, someone should delve into 

in more detail than we did who’s the optimal actor to do this job 

or that job? 

We came away with a sense that, one, there was much effort underway. Two, that additional steps needed to be taken. Three, some 

of the people of responsible parties were, indeed, taking them. 

So even as we gather here today just yesterday, the Governor of 

Pennsylvania announced additional protections, further setbacks 

and buffers that will be required around private drinking wells, 

public water resources, and rivers and streams. 

In our report, we also point to areas where in terms of your 

phrase, a gap, where we think there is a gap where more work is 

needed. So in disclosure, we’ve made a lot of progress now along 

the fracturing fluids themselves. Texas has passed a law; many 

States have passed a law. It’s becoming common practice that all 

of those chemicals will be disclosed. 

But we said it should go further and what comes out of the well 

and the produce of flow back water, the contents of that should be 

disclosed as well and there are other examples in the report. So the 

gap we saw was the gap of the need for continuous improvement 

where it exists. Where do we need to bolster our efforts? As compared to this particular regulator or that particular regulator needs 

to do more than that entity is doing today. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of you for your professionalism and it’s been 

very helpful. 

Let me begin, if I might, with—with you, Dr. Yergin. I have been 

reading more about the practice of flaring, the burning off of natural gas that is uncovered during oil production. Did your committee look at this issue, and in your view is this an issue that policymakers ought to be digging into now? 

Mr. YERGIN. I think should really turn that question to Professor 

Holditch who is the one who’s the most deeply experienced with 

that. 
24 

Senator WYDEN. Professor. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Flaring is—is regulated. If you drill a new oil 

well and you don’t have a pipeline in there for the natural gas, you 

can flare the well under permit for just a short time. Then if you 

don’t get a pipeline in, you have to shut the well in. 

We did talk about flaring in our subcommittee, and the consensus was it would be—we don’t want to flare gas. We want to— 

only—only when necessary. It’s better to—to capture the gas and 

sell the gas. But—but flaring is actually preferred over just venting 

the gas. So—so it is an issue that is regulated by the States and— 

and it’s usually a win for everybody. If you can sell the gas you’ll— 

you get more revenue and you do less harm to the environment. 

So flaring is something that needs to be watched. 

Senator WYDEN. Let me—let me turn to you, Dr. Yergin on a— 

on a policy matter sort of for the future, and you and I have—have 

touched on it. So there is this host of issues, you know, fracking, 

the issue of water, the impact on communities. There are a variety 

of issues. You have talked, I think, very eloquently about this sort 

of patchwork of rules and—and regulations, State approaches, Federal approaches, a variety of—of different regulatory approaches. 

My sense is that the Federal Government, because the Federal 

Government owns oil shale lands and gas shale lands, would be a 

very good place to try to bring together all of the stakeholders, industry folks, scientists, environmental people and try to come up 

with the kind of comprehensive approach that could give us new 

information about best practices. To really look at the various practices that are now underway by industry and, in effect, use those, 

you know, Federal lands as a kind of laboratory to come up with 

the best practices. 

I’ve talked to Secretary Salazar about this. I think they’re interested in it. But I’d be interested in—in your thoughts about, you 

know, the Federal Government making a significant contribution in 

this area by looking at these Federal lands as a place to develop 

the kind of best practices and—and protocols frankly that, I think, 

you all touch on in the report. 

Mr. YERGIN. Best practices is a theme that runs throughout the 

report and it’s also recognition that best practices aren’t static, 

they—they evolve over time. So I think, as you say, Federal lands 

and Government’s ownership of them is one arena for that. 

One of the strong recommendations that we also made is kind of 

a regional approach to addressing best practices, not only on Federal lands, but in different regions that the issues in Pennsylvania 

will be different than the issues in Texas. So I think as a focus for 

the—for going forward with this endeavor that that’s a very good 

one around which to—to build it. 

Senator WYDEN. Would any of the other panel members like to 

touch on this? Ms. McGinty? 

Ms. MCGINTY. Sure. Thank you, Senator. I think it’s a—a great 

idea and I do think that BLM in our conversations with them has 

an eye on trying to do just that to move the industry forward and 

to enable production, but to help discover what these best techniques are. 

I do think the one footnote in caution is the one that Dan was 

just point to, which is the geologic differences make—— 
25 

Senator WYDEN. Right. 

Ms. MCGINTY.—A world difference in terms of the kind of measures that are needed to ensure water safe and air safe, if you will, 

production efforts. 

Senator WYDEN. I think that’s a point well taken. I was struck 

by Senator Murkowski’s, you know, point with respect to information sharing and the question of the agencies in a lot of these instances not sharing, you know, information. It would seem to me 

that if you looked at Federal lands particularly in the kind of context that Dr. Yergin and you, Ms. McGinty, have mentioned that 

we would try it in a variety of different, you know, regions. We 

could pick up on the useful idea Senator Murkowski’s talking about 

which is sharing information. 

Ms. MCGINTY. Um-hmm. 

Senator WYDEN. Look at best practices, get all the Federal agencies really singing from the same, you know, hymnal and walk 

away after a period of time with some ideas that could be recognized, in effect, as the gold standard and widely supported by a variety of stakeholders. So I’m going to probably be contacting some 

of you about this—in the future. But I thank you for your good 

work and my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you Mr. Chairman and thanks for the 

opportunity to emphasize the importance that American natural 

gas plays in America’s economy. 

The development of our natural gas can go a long way toward 

getting America back to work. It’s going to create lots of jobs in 

many of our local communities and it will generate much needed 

revenues, as we heard today for State and local governments as 

well as for the Federal Government. It will also enhance America’s 

national security. Increasing the development of American natural 

gas is a win-win proposition. It should be embraced by all of us. 

The Shale Gas Production Subcommittee recognizes this in its report, and I commend you for doing so. 

Of course, the focus of the report is not the promise of American 

natural gas. The focus is the environmental impacts associated 

with developing and using this resource-specifically recommendations to reduce those impacts. To this end, the report could have 

I think, done much more to underscore the success that States 

have had in regulating oil and gas development. Take, for example, 

the issue of disclosing fracking fluid composition. 

The report recommends that regulatory entities should immediately develop rules to require disclosure of all chemicals used in 

hydraulic fracking fluids on both public and private lands. The 

State of Wyoming has done that on both public lands and with our 

private lands. Wyoming implemented the disclosure regulation over 

a year ago. Not only that, Wyoming has made this disclosure part 

of the approval process on applications for permits to drill and 

nearly all of this information is available to the public. The report, 

however, makes only a passing reference to State regulations in 

this area. 

My point is simple. States have vast experience regulating oil 

and gas development. They’re best situated to regulate this sector 

of our economy and Washington should continue, I believe, to allow 
26 

States to regulate oil and gas development without creating additional levels of bureaucracy. 

Dr. Yergin, it’s always a privilege to have you before the committee. I have enjoyed the visits that we have had. As one of the 

foremost experts on the history of oil and gas development, can you 

give the committee maybe a better understanding of the central 

vote that States have played in regulating oil and gas development? 

Mr. YERGIN. That—that goes back to Senator Murkowski’s comments as well. I think that one of the really strong things that 

came through is the—is this the depth, the seriousness and the historical experience that States bring to this. As the discussion was 

continuing, I was also thinking if one chooses community engagement, States are much closer to the communities than the Federal 

Government. 

So and that’s why one of the recommendations we made was for 

the supporting of the—of the collaboration and exchange of knowledge and information among the States. But I certainly come out 

of this, the night—the—the time that we spent on this very impressed by the—by the extent and the seriousness—and the seriousness of the States. As I said before, I think there’s a tendency 

to assume that this isn’t going on but it’s been going on for decades. As you said, the States are—are—are at the leader and— 

and—and bring that long experience to it. 

Senator BARRASSO. So then, if Washington steps in, begins to 

regulate areas historically regulated by the States, is there a danger of creating excessive regulations and discouraging the development of the resources? 

Mr. YERGIN. Certainly you can end up having a kind of superstructure on top of a superstructure that would make investment 

more difficult, that would greatly take much longer time to get 

things done, and also sort of get further away from the communities. 

Senator BARRASSO. Professor Holditch, in your written testimony,you said you have been working in hydraulic fracturing for 

40-plus years and there is absolutely no evidence hydraulic fractures can grow from miles below the surface to the fresh water 

aquifers. That is a very strong statement. 

Professor Zoback, in your written testimony you said,‘‘ It is unfortunate..., that the concern about the safety of shale gas development has focused almost entirely on hydraulic fracturing.’’ Would 

either of you like to elaborate a bit on those comments? 

Mr. HOLDITCH. I—I—I’ve been working in this area. I’ve been— 

I’ve built hydraulic fracture mathematical models. I’ve—I’ve analyzed hundreds of wells. I’ve been out in the field and these fractures grow hundreds of feet up or down. They don’t grow thousands 

of feet up or down. As soon as you quit pumping and the pressure’s 

relieved, the fractures close so it’s just virtually impossible for—for 

that to happen. 

Now once you start flowing the well back and you come up the 

casing, there could be issues, perhaps, but not during the hydraulic 

fracturing process as far as I know based on my 40–plus years of 

working in the area. 
27 

Mr. ZOBACK. I guess my comment would be that when you— 

when you look at the reported cases in—of environmental impact 

associated with shale gas development and they fall largely into 3 

categories. One is leakage along well casings and the hydrocarbons 

come up and can contaminate the surface aquifers, or they can 

come all the way to the surface sometimes and cause problems. 

The second problem has been leakage and spills, containment 

areas, reservoirs where flow back water and other—other dangerous substances are contained, have been—have reached 

uncontaminated water supplies. 

There have been blowouts during the drilling of these shale gas 

wells, nothing catastrophic, but still serious incidents. All of these 

things are things we have to work to prevent and to minimize and 

none of these things have anything to do with hydraulic fracturing. 

So hydraulic fracturing has sort of become a—a bumper sticker 

for everything that we need to watch out for and that’s the problem. It—there—there are, you know, significant environmental impacts associated with shale gas development and we must minimize those impacts as we move forward. But simply the constant 

reference to hydraulic fracturing misrepresents what those impacts 

are and where the attention needs to be paid. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for this—for this hearing and I’d like to thank all— 

all of those testifying for your testimony and for your work. 

Dr. Yergin, you—you mentioned 2 main recommendations, funding regulatory entities like STRONGER is one, and Government 

funding of R and D, is that right? 

Mr. YERGIN. Right. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. You said that the—the payoff for these 

reg—these—this funding would be hundredsfold in your testimony, 

right? 

Mr. YERGIN. Right. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. So this is Government funding? 

Mr YERGIN. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. That’s right? OK. We don’t have natural gas— 

we don’t have fracking in—in Minnesota. We do have a medical device industry which has user fees and pays for its regulation. I was 

wondering why this has to be Government funding. I mean, we’re 

all concerned about money here. Are—are the oil and gas companies, are—are they doing OK? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Do they need—do they need help? 

Mr. YERGIN. This isn’t for the oil and gas companies. The—what 

we’re addressing is 2 things. One is going back to the topic that has 

come up which is the States and facilitating a collaboration among 

the States so that they can share best practices and knowledge 

among them, and that’s what STRONGER is about. That’s what 

groundwater’s about. So, I mean, this is talking, you know, cut— 

a few million dollars. These are not big sums, but it’s to keep 

these—— 
28 

Senator FRANKEN. But you want that to be Government, paid by 

the Government. 

Mr. YERGIN. No, we recommended—— 

Senator FRANKEN. As opposed to—— 

Mr. YERGIN [continuing]. We reckon—it has been paid by the 

Government and recommend that it should be. That it’s—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Should be paid by the Government. 

Mr. YERGIN [continuing]. It’s a Government activity. You know, 

as you know, there’s—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Does it help facilitate the oil and gas recovery 

from the earth—from the earth? 

Mr. YERGIN. What it does is it facilitates the regulatory process 

that—that we’ve been discussing this morning. 

Senator FRANKEN. Right, and does that regulatory process help 

facilitate the extraction of oil and gas? 

Mr. YERGIN. Yes, and it—— 

Senator FRANKEN. OK, so in other words this—this money that 

you want the Government to pay to help facilitate the extraction 

of oil and gas should be paid by the Government and not the oil 

and gas companies. That’s your—that’s your view. 

Mr. YERGIN. I think that’s—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Is that correct? 

Mr. YERGIN. I think—I would think the committee recommends 

that yes this is an activity that is a useful Government activity. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. I—— 

Mr. YERGIN. The best we can do—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Actually, that wasn’t my question. I understand that it’s useful, and it’s useful to the oil and gas industry. 

I was wondering why it isn’t useful for the oil and gas industry to 

foot the bill for it considering that we—we’ve had this, you know, 

we’ve had a lot of budget discussions of late. Why are you recommending that the Government pay for the oil and gas? 

Mr. YERGIN. I think it was not me recommending it. It was the 

committee that recommended the oil—— 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Can any other member of the committee 

care to this discuss this? Kathy. 

Ms. MCGINTY. Senator, if I might just add to the—the—the perspective that you’re—you’re sharing and I understand it. We had 

another concern or an objective in mind which is that as much as 

when you’re looking at whether regulations are adequate or what 

is a best practice and what’s not, the industry needs to be at the 

table and we need their expertise. 

Our objective also was to provide the forums that average citizens could participate, that academicians who have expertise could 

participate. We kind of wanted to open the doors. We’ve talked 

about inclusive processes and that was a key recommendation that 

we made. 

You know, there are industry groups out there that have done 

good work in setting out what they think are best practices. They 

typically or sometimes have not been developed in the context that 

have enabled the public to have a seat at the table and so some 

of these form stronger than others to enable those groups to participate. 
29 

Senator FRANKEN. Let me make the analogy again to the medical 

device industry. 

Ms. MCGINTY. Um-hmm. 

Senator FRANKEN. We’re about to have hearings on—on that. The 

Food and Drug Administration gets money from the industry. 

They’re—they have a very adversarial relationship sometimes with 

the industry that, I mean, doesn’t stop the funding coming from the 

industry. Why wouldn’t the industry pay for this? 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Can I make a comment? 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, Mr. Holditch. All I’m trying to do is say 

that—— 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Yes, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN [continuing]. That we have a budget crisis 

now. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. The—I know that—I didn’t mean to be sarcastic about how the oil and gas industry is doing. We know they’re 

doing very well. You’re talking about funding R and D, and funding 

regulation that you say would benefit hundreds-fold. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Let—let—let me—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, sir. Go ahead. I’m sorry, Dr. Holditch. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. There—there’s a common misconception that— 

that when the Department of Energy decides to fund research 

you’re—you’re—you’re—you’re supplying money to the big oil company. Why should you give money to Big Oil? 

The—the bottom line is most of the money the Department of 

Energy allots for research, which is quite small, goes to universities. I have a thousand students in my department. I have a hundred Ph.D.’s. These are going to be the scientists and engineers 

that find the energy to power this country over the next 50 years. 

A good deal of the Federal money that goes to oil and gas research, 

goes to universities like Stanford, and Texas A and M, and University of Texas at Austin. We’re using it for not only some oil and 

gas research, but we’re using it to turnout the next generation of 

engineers to—that will find the—the energy we require to power 

this country. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, but I was talking about what Dr. Yergin 

had suggested and he was talking about funding regulation of this 

particular in—of—of strong, you know, funding of STRONGER 

which is the State. What is it? What does STRONGER stand for? 

Mr. YERGIN. Let’s see. 

Ms. MCGINTY. It’s an acute—— 

Senator FRANKEN. It’s an acronym. 

Ms. MCGINTY. Yes. It’s a peer review process that has the State’s 

and other stakeholders review whether a particular State’s regulations are adequate. 

Senator FRANKEN. I’m sorry to go over my time but I’m just trying to— 

Mr. YERGIN. I don’t know. Can I—— 

Senator FRANKEN [continuing]. Just I—I only had— 

Mr. YERGIN [continuing]. Can I—can I—can I clarify the— 

Senator FRANKEN [continuing]. Really had one question. 

Mr. YERGIN. During the Clinton administration, I chaired a task 

force for the Department of Energy on energy R and D. Energy R 
30 

and D is something that the Federal Government has funded very 

strongly since the Second World War. It goes back to George Washington. 

We’re not saying that, in this case, that they should fund R and 

D for oil and gas extraction. We’re saying there are a series of 

questions about methane, about water quality. What you’re really 

doing is funding scientists and graduate students, people writing 

Ph.D.’s, people to understand what’s happening to the water or 

what’s happening to the air. So that’s when we talk, and how to 

manage those issues. So that’s—we were—that’s what we were 

talking about in the R and D side on, focused on the issues that 

are of public concern. 

Senator FRANKEN. I—I actually, I totally understand that. I totally understand what you’re saying and I’m not sure that you totally understand what I’m saying ’cause what you’re saying is that 

you want R and D specifically tied to the results, the harmful results of fracking and of—of gas extraction. You want specific funding, in fact money, Government funding for a regulation of this. 

Yet, you want the Government to pay for it as opposed to the industry to pay for it. This and—— 

Mr. YERGIN. If—— 

Senator FRANKEN [continuing]. It bothers me because in the industry that I was talking about, in the medical device industry, the 

medical device industry pays user fees to the FDA, which certainly 

very often has an adversarial relationship. I don’t understand why 

you—why the industry itself can’t pay for this especially at a point 

where they seem to be making profits hands over fist—— 

Mr. YERGIN. But Senator Franken—— 

Senator FRANKEN. At the same time, we have this budget crisis. 

Mr. YERGIN. Senator Franken, doesn’t the Federal Government, 

the National Institutes of Health spend an enormous amount of 

money on medical R and D in the country? 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, but it—it isn’t specifically to regulate 

the—— 

Mr. YERGIN. OK. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. I—I—I—I’m way over my time and I certainly believe in the DOE should be spending money on research. 

Don’t get me wrong. I—I—I believe we should be spending more 

money on basic R and D and—and more money on getting Ph.D.’s 

to—for our students and more money at universities. I’m just saying in this specific instance, it’s hard for me to understand why the 

industry shouldn’t pay for this—this regulation and research that 

will provide hundredsfold returns for the industry, as you said. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why don’t we go ahead with Senator Hoeven’s 

questions? 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Hydraulic fracturing, I believe, is very important to the future 

energy development of this country and—and meeting our energy 

needs both in oil and in natural gas. Appreciate the tremendous experience that all of you bring to this study. 

In our State, though we’ve been an oil and gas producing State 

for some time, nothing of the magnitude that we are now, and it’s 
31 

directly related to our ability to do hydraulic fracturing, as you’re 

aware, in the Bakken Formation. 

For the last decade, I served as Governor of the State of North 

Dakota. When I started, our oil was—our oil production was much 

smaller and it was declining and companies, if they were still in 

our State, they were leaving it. We worked very hard to create a 

good environment so they would come invest and figure out how to 

do hydraulic fracturing economically. They knew the oil was down 

there. Doctor Price—you’re all, obviously, very aware of Dr. Price’s 

study. They knew there were oil reserves down there. The issue 

was being able to produce them economically and that meant figuring out the technology to do hydraulic fracturing, which now they 

do on a regular basis. Our State produces about 450,000 barrels a 

day and we’ll pass California pretty soon and be the third largest 

producing State in the country. I don’t know that we can catch 

Alaska; they—they produce a lot but we’re—we’re running hard. 

So when you say the State has a lot of experience in this area, 

thank you. That’s right. In looking at your recommendations, how 

do we make sure that we continue to allow States to be the primary regulator, do the good job that they are doing and not get 

into a one-size-fits-all because hydraulic fracturing is different in 

different locations? The geology is different, the product they’re 

pursuing is different, the elevations are dramatically different. 

We’re talking about producing oil 2 miles underground, a long way 

from any potable water source that’s used versus shallow gas and 

so forth. 

So when you make recommendations, I understand, certainly, 

the national data base. We’d have to have some discussion about 

who does that, particularly with States as primary regulator, but 

when we talk about air emissions, when we talk about water management systems, even when we talk about management and disclosure on hydraulic fracturing fluids. Explain to me what these 

recommendations, how we walk this forward in a way where the 

States remain the primary regulators, continue to work with the 

industry and don’t get into, again, the Federal Government coming 

in and saying, ‘‘OK. This is how everybody’s going to do it whether 

it makes sense or whether it’s economic or not,’’ because that’s the 

exact kind of thing that was driving our countries—our companies 

to other countries to produce oil and gas. 

We need the investment in these new technologies here which 

will not only produce far more energy for this country, but do it 

with better environmental stewardship. I’d just like you to take a 

swing at that because, obviously, we’ve got this report now, next 

step. How do we do this in a way that encourages energy development with States as the primary regulator rather than a one-sizefits-all? Again, it tends to dampen our efforts to produce more energy in this country. 

Mr. YERGIN. Let me—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Dr. Yergin, if you’d start. 

Mr. YERGIN. Yes, I’ll start. First of all let me say, we’re all in 

awe of North Dakota and what’s been accomplished. 

Senator HOEVEN. We’re off to a great start, Dr. Yergin, I must 

say. 
32 

Mr. YERGIN. Right. It’s quite an amazing story that, as you say, 

you’ll soon be third, but North Dakota, the fourth largest oil producing. Bakken, just a few years ago, was 10,000 barrels a day. So 

it’s a combination of technology, entrepreneurship and a sound regulatory environment. So it’s extraordinary. 

I think, you know, in terms of answering it, we have one person 

at the table who’s been both a Federal and a State regulator, Katie 

McGinty, and maybe you’d like to take the swing first. 

Ms. MCGINTY. Thanks Dan. Senator, thank you for your question. 

I—I—2 things. First what’s not said in our report, we didn’t come 

up with any conclusion that was that the deckchairs need to be 

shuffled around. In fact, I’d say while it was not our charge to look 

at that, there was nothing in the testimony we heard or the substance that we focused on and in the what needed to be done that 

led to a—a glaring conclusion that there was an actor missing from 

the scene. So I think one thing that’s significant is, again, what 

we—what we don’t say. We did not reach any conclusion like that. 

But I—but I do want to underscore, Senator, I think your point 

in terms of how do we ensure that things continue to grow, and we 

continue to see the opportunity that you’ve realized in your State 

and many States are seeing as well? That’s what these recommendations are about. They’re about the—the continuous improvement that is always needed to ensure the public’s confidence 

and to ensure that the industry is, in fact, moving forward in a responsible way. 

We think these recommendations are at the heart of that: improving the equation on water quality, air quality. You know, the 

States are doing a good job. We’ve referenced Wyoming and Colorado’s work in putting new requirements in place on air quality. So 

we don’t make a recommend that a different entity ought to do it, 

but we do recommend—make recommendations that say, more 

needs to be done. 

Senator HOEVEN. Go ahead, Dr. Zoback. 

Dr. ZOBACK. One of the unique things about these shale reservoirs is that geologically, they have one thing in common and— 

and that is they are roughly 1 million times less capable of allowing fluid to flow through them than a standard oil and gas reservoir. This is why hydraulic fracturing is needed. So it’s been the 

development of this technology that has unleashed this—this—this 

resource. 

The—as my colleague Ms. McGinty pointed out, we recognize 

that the differences, geologic differences from place to place sort of 

put the States in the right position to do this, to do the regulation 

because we didn’t see a one-size-fit-all solution. This is why we endorse groups such as STRONGER to allow the States to learn from 

each other and take what is a—a national resource at some level. 

The shale gas reservoirs are found in 23 different States, but also 

to have it regulated on a more local level where the local expertise 

can adapt the regulations to local conditions. 

Senator HOEVEN. Dr. Holditch. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. I’ve been working on the technology of drilling, 

completing and fracturing wells for a long time, and I think it’s 

very clear the technology changes with time. The technology 
33 

changes depending on the geology and the geography. You—you 

can’t drill a—a—a Haynesville shale well the same way you drill 

a Bakken shale well or you drill a well in Arkansas. So local control, local understanding of best practices is—is really the best way 

to go. 

As—as we saw in our public meetings, virtually all of the industry and virtually all of the regulators, the State regulators think 

everything is just fine right now with the—with—with the—with 

the process, we’re going to have to keep updating the regulations, 

for example, on fracture fluid disclosure. But there’s nothing broken with the system now. We just have to turn our crosshairs on 

some few different problems and make sure we—we solve those 

problems. 

Senator HOEVEN. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I’ll wrap up there. I see 

I’m over my time, but I think that’s the right place to end up. 

That’s very important in terms of implementing these recommend—recommendations, that we do it in a way where we empower the States and empower the industry to continue to move 

forward, but accomplish some of these objectives versus kind of 

fallback to EPA stepping in and saying, ‘‘Now everybody’s going to 

do it this way.’’ 

So I would just encourage you as you interact with the EPA that 

that remain part of your message. I would look—I would appreciate 

any, if you have any written comments that you would like to submit to my office that we could look at to try to move the EPA in 

that direction, I—I’d appreciate very much receiving them. 

Thank you for your work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to you, and the ranking member, for holding this important hearing. 

I want to thank the panelists for your great work on the subcommittee itself. 

I like, I think most if not all of the members of this committee, 

support developing shale gas resources to reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil and to help us transition to clean and renewable energy sources. But we’ve got to take the necessary steps to address 

the public’s concerns about fracking in particular. I think you all 

would agree. 

I’ve emphasized that one well contaminated or one person made 

sick is one too many. But I also would tell you, as Ms. McGinty and 

others talked about the situation in Colorado, that natural gas production is a strong economic driver across our country. There’s a 

potential to create even more jobs, which is the focus, certainly, of 

the Congress and of Americans at large. 

In your report, I think it’s fair to say, you highlight and then you 

emphasize that there’s a critical need to adopt best practices in 

areas such as well development, construction with the focus on casing, cementing and pressure management, as well as minimizing 

water use and limiting vertical fracture growth. 

If I could, I’d like to follow up on Senator Wyden’s question. How 

do you suggest developing and implementing best practices to provide quality assurance for well construction? Will you propose, the 

subcommittee, an action plan for forming a national organization 
34 

to develop these best practices? Then, what concrete steps should 

the Government and industry take in the short term to better inform the public about shale gas development and the environmental impact? Easy, short questions. Doctor? 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Yes. Let me just say one, short little thing and 

then maybe the other on the subcommittee would like to add to it. 

I—in—one of the biggest issues any time you drill any well for 

any reason is to protect the—the freshwater aquifers. In—in Texas, 

we have maps of all the aquifers. When you permit a well, you 

have to know, they tell you exactly how deep you have to go to set 

casing. When you get to that depth, you call up the Railroad Commission. They send someone into the field and make sure the casing is run properly, and make sure it’s cemented properly and— 

and if it’s not, you have to take remedial stapes. 

So there are procedures for protecting the groundwater that are 

done State by State very well in—in—in all of the producing 

States. Those are the best practices that we need to make sure 

they get to other States that don’t have this experience that— 

that—that we have in the oil producing States. That’s where some 

regional centers of excellence where best practices are—are put together; this—this organization STRONGER actually does some of 

that. 

So I think we really, we have the mechanisms in place. We’ve 

just got to push them forward. 

Senator UDALL. Dr. Zoback. 

Mr. ZOBACK. Yes. Thank you, Senator. 

One of our recommendations we entitled, ‘‘Organizing for Best 

Practice,’’ and it was to enable just the kinds of activities you were 

asking about and we—we feel there’s a real—a real need for that. 

The public is not well-informed on these issues. Industry and— 

and other stakeholders are not engaged with the public sufficiently, 

and the Federal and State regulators seem to be on their own—on 

own their own paths. So we felt that there was a real opportunity 

for these—these various groups to come together, and organize for 

best practice to share this information, and to share the information with the public so that they know what’s doing—what—what’s 

being done and—and how their interests are being—being protected. So that was an area where our—our committee made a 

number of specific recommendations. 

Ms. MCGINTY. Senator, yes, just to build on that and an important part of that, I think, that’s been kind of implicitly referred to 

it, but the inclusiveness is important. There are organizations like 

American Petroleum Institute that do have very good standards 

that they have produced to advise on well casing and cementing, 

and some of the other measures we’re talking about. But 2 things 

are different. 

One is that we—we are looking for in order to enhance the 

public’s confidence in the industry that these efforts be open to 

other stakeholders. Second, that they be measurable so that if you 

take a certain precaution in terms of the cement that you are 

using, what’s the measurable outcome in terms of water quality? 

Or if you use microseismicity to better understand and target your 

frack job, what’s the outcome in terms of the efficiency of the pro-
35 

duction of that resource? The efforts to date have not had that 

measurable component. 

I think Dr. Holditch mentioned the environmentally friendly 

drilling. That’s a good example of the kind of thing we were looking 

for. It’s inclusive and it’s looking at measurable progress. Then it’s 

making it easy for the public to understand through a scorecard 

that it’s working on that would rate the environmental effectiveness of the operations at a given well-site. 

Senator UDALL. Dr. Yergin, do you, as the as dean of this group, 

do you have thoughts you might want to add? 

Mr. YERGIN. I think I just support what my colleagues have said 

in—in this regard. 

I mean, I think that the, you know, there’s what happens in production and drilling the wells and everything, and then there’s the 

perceptions that goes back to the gap question. It goes back to the 

question of some really do think that—that this development which 

has happened very rapidly is a kind of Wild West, and then because it’s in Pennsylvania, also Wild East. 

Senator UDALL. Um-hmm. 

Mr. YERGIN. But, in fact, it’s a—a highly, you know, it is a highly 

regulated activity at the State level, and continuing to push as— 

as it expands, to continue to push it and address the kind of questions you’re talking about. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you’d indulge me with 

one additional question? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, go ahead. 

Senator UDALL. Your report emphasized that most of the problems associated with fracking have been linked to leaked or leaking 

well casings. If the well’s not drilled right, then any number of 

fluids can leak into groundwater. 

How can we, at the Federal level, State level for that matter, 

work with industry and scientists to improve research and development for fracking technology? Could you give any examples of the 

R and D that the Federal Government could support to improve extraction of shale gas and address public concerns about health and 

environment which is, after all, what we’re discussing? 

Mr. YERGIN. Yes, I think that’s for Steve and Mark would be the 

ones to actually have the—but one of the things we do want to 

come back to in our work is the specific agenda. But as the dean, 

I’ll turn it over to the 2 of them. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. One of the things that—that the committee needs 

to understand if you don’t already is that these—these shale gas 

developments in—in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Pennsylvania are all going on in—in areas where 

we’ve been drilling wells for the last 50, 60, 70 years. There’s tens 

of thousands of old wells in the same places we’re drilling these 

shale gas wells. 

So the—the casing and the cementing issues may go back to 

some wells that were drilled 20, 30, 40 years ago before they were 

properly regulated or maybe just corrosion has set in. So there 

could be, very well, issues in there and that’s another whole can 

of worms, another whole set of problems we’re going to have to deal 

with at some point in time, perhaps. But it doesn’t really tie to 

wells that are drilled correctly right now. 
36 

I think the research we ought to be doing, to get back to your 

question is—is trying to come up with green tech and green fluids 

and—and ways to handle the produced water better. 

Senator UDALL. Um-hmm. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Just take care of what we’re doing and get—get, 

you know, maybe we can come up with another bactericide that— 

then we can get rid of the Clorox or something like that. So there— 

there is some research to do but—but I’m not all that concerned 

at all with the casing and the cementing of the new wells that 

we’re drilling. It’s the old wells that, I think, we need to be looking 

at. 

Senator UDALL. Thanks again to the panel and I think what I 

hear all you saying was, ‘‘Do this right.’’ Thank you again for the 

report. Look forward to working with you as we move forward to 

produce this really important resource, but to do it right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask a question that Dr. Holditch, in 

your testimony you say that, ‘‘We need to develop more affordable 

technology to monitor air quality and methane emissions during 

the entire life of a shale gas well from drilling to production.’’ 

Could you elaborate on that a little bit? 

Mr. HOLDITCH. OK. I may have to punt on this one too over to 

Kathleen, perhaps. But—but I was under the impression. It—it’s in 

our report and in our—in our comments that—that to really go out 

and make accurate measurements in—in a wide area of just what 

chemicals or what—what emissions might be occurring, the sensors 

to do those measurements are quite expensive, and it takes time 

to gather that data. I believe we—what we heard in—in the public 

meetings that we held is that—that—and—and some of our discussions is that we really need to take a look at how we can make better air quality measurements with lower cost sensors and still 

maintain the sensitivity we need to understand the air quality. Is 

that—does that? 

Ms. MCGINTY. Hit it out of the park. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. OK. 

Ms MCGINTY. I’d just add that in the various pieces of the shale 

gas operations, some are—lend themselves more readily to measurement than other aspects. 

So the—at the time of well completion, that’s the time when you 

can really have your arms around: what is that pulse of methane 

that is produced when the well is being completed? It’s a little 

tougher once that methane then travels into the gathering equipment, and the midstream, and the down street operations. Infrared 

technology is being used now to try to see where there might be 

fugitive methane from that infrastructure. As Dr. Holditch mentioned, there are sensors that are being developed to assist in that 

effort. But it is an area of improvement that’s needed. 

I’d also say just even at that green completion stage, there is a 

need for care in approach there too because the equipment needs 

to be styled such that you do not have any safety issue when that 

methane is being captured. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do we have—are the States requiring monitoring 

of methane emissions in—in the drilling and—and operation of 

wells? I’m surprised if they are. Is that going on right now? 
37 

Ms. MCGINTY. No, I do not believe so. There are a couple of efforts that are beginning to come together. Our colleague, Fred 

Krup, who is part of our task force is working with a variety of 

companies in the industry to put an initiative together that would 

begin to gather that data. EPA has looked at this and, I think, has 

some modeling that they have put forward where you would impute what the methane emission might be. But in terms of direct 

measurement, our report calls for an effort that would get a better 

look at the lifecycle of methane emissions from shale gas operations. 

Mr. YERGIN. In fact, I think we could just add that is, I think 

you alluded to in your opening statement, there’s quite considerable debate as to the scale of the methane emissions. So, it cries 

out for proper measurement. 

The CHAIRMAN. It does seem to me, I know we’ve had a lot of 

questions from Senators and testimony also about how, you know, 

this all ought to be done at the State level, all this regulation and 

all. It does seem to me that the monitoring of methane emissions, 

there might be some uniformity if—if, in fact there’s technology 

available or developed that can be used to monitor methane emissions at a well-site. It seems like there’s some uniformity that could 

be appropriate there and you wouldn’t want a circumstance where 

one State says— 

Ms. MCGINTY. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN.—‘‘We could care less,’’ about whether, what the 

methane emissions are from—from wells drilled in our State while 

someone else is trying to be more responsible and deal with it. 

Mr. ZOBACK. If—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Zoback. 

Mr. ZOBACK. Just to elaborate. The—the issues of tracking fugitive methane emissions is a—is a common issue to shale gas development in all 23 States and a number of these other environmental 

issues are—are common. Whether, you know, it’s—it’s a—it’s a different story about how we go about addressing some of these outstanding problems, which is of national scale and regulating local 

operations which, I think, all of us feel is appropriately left with 

the States where the local expertise lies. 

So because we’re recommending that the States have primary jurisdiction over the regulation doesn’t mean that there’s not a need 

for a national program of research on some of these critical common issues that enable the lifecycle analysis to be done correctly. 

The CHAIRMAN. What if you did the research and the Federal 

Government funded it, and it concluded that, yes, there was a cost 

effective, reasonably inexpensive way to monitor methane emissions at well-sites during the drilling process and otherwise. Then 

some kind of requirement that could be implemented would not 

seem, to me, inappropriate. 

I mean, it wouldn’t—it wouldn’t make sense to say we’re just 

going to leave it up to the States whether they actually do this 

monitoring. That—that’s a difference of opinion, I’m sure, I would 

have with some of my colleagues up here. 

Let me defer to Senator Murkowski for any additional questions 

she has. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
38 

Good conversation. I will say I have learned a great deal just 

from the hour and half that we’ve had an opportunity to talk with 

you. 

You know, I started off my questioning about this gap analysis, 

and I think it is clear that while it may not be misinformation 

maybe it’s just not complete information. But there’s so much discussion about, ‘‘Oh, this toxic soup of chemicals,’’ that goes into the 

fracking and the need for full disclosure there. I think, Dr. Zoback, 

the word that you used was essentially these chemicals are somewhat benign. That it’s through the process where the fluids are 

pushed out that you get the interaction that causes a different composition coming out, and that’s what we need to be focusing on. It 

is a lack of understanding, I think, that causes concern. 

Dr. Zoback, you mentioned that, ‘‘Hydraulic fracturing then becomes a bumper sticker for everything we need to watch out for.’’ 

I think we all, as policymakers, need to be careful about not only 

the language that we use but how we describe certain processes because I think it does cause unnecessary alarm or concern. 

It was interesting to hear from all of you a recognition that with 

hydraulic fracturing and this process has been around for, as you 

remind us Dr. Holditch, at least 40 years and then some. This allows us access to a resource that is both valued and needed and 

we need to do what we can to ensure greater access, but in a way 

that’s the environmentally responsible. We can do that and there 

are clearly States that are working hard to ensure a level of regulation that, I think, we all hope for and want. 

We just need to make sure that we don’t try to apply a one-sizefits-all application. Your own study notes that, ‘‘The geological diversity means that engineering practices and regulatory oversight 

will differ widely among regions of the country.’’ I think we respect 

that and need to ensure that when we’re talking about the regulations we acknowledge just exactly that. 

I listened carefully to your response, Ms. McGinty, about the best 

practices, and the reason why we need to have a new standard setting body cause when I looked at that, I thought immediately, 

‘‘Well, why wouldn’t we stick with API or AGA?’’ Both have demonstrated their abilities in setting existing standards. Maybe for 

some reason the message is not being understood clearly because 

of who’s delivering it. I don’t know if that’s the issue. 

You mentioned it’s got to be more inclusive and I can understand 

that but I also note that you don’t have involvement from anyone 

in the Federal Government. I don’t know whether that was intentional or not, but I understand where you’re coming from. Still, I’m 

loathe to set up yet one more standards setting body if it’s just 

going to be kind of a duplication. If we’re having an issue making 

sure that what these standard setting bodies are putting forward 

is not being understood, let’s deal with that. But that is something 

that initially causes me a little bit of concern. 

A question to each of you: You’ve got another report coming up, 

a status on the 180-day report. I guess this is within 6 weeks from 

now. What should we anticipate from that? Have you gathered anything from this discussion here this morning that you can then incorporate into that report? If so, I’ve got a lot of extra questions 
39 

for you. But can you give me some kind of a heads-up as to what 

we might anticipate? Dr. Yergin? 

Mr. YERGIN. I think this is—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Since you’re in the writing mode here. 

Mr. YERGIN. Yes, exactly. I—you know, we are about 6 weeks 

out. I think what we—we’re not—I—I don’t think we’re going to try 

to have a—a full, comprehensive report because we—we couldn’t as 

we covered a lot of ground in this. But rather, to look at these series of recommendations we made and have some chart of what 

kind of progress has been made on them looking across the range 

of issues. So that’s certainly one of the immediate things on the 

agenda. 

I think there’s a—a lot to carry away from this discussion including it is so interesting that the theme that runs through without 

is—is the Federal-State relationship and where does responsibility 

lie and clarifying that because even as I’ve been listening to the 

discussion, I was just thinking there’s such a discussion out here 

that is just, doesn’t recognize how this industry is regulated now 

or, indeed, that it is regulated. I think further clarification of that 

would be helpful. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Will your report look to the various States, 

the 23 States that currently have shale gas, how they are regulating? Does it incorporate that? 

Mr. YERGIN. Kate—Kate—Katie, do you? 

Ms. MCGINTY. Yes well, Senator, yes. So the best practices that 

we point to are typically drawn from the experience of the States. 

So when we talk about, for example, how valuable it is to have 

that baseline environmental data and have it publicly disclosed 

that some States are already doing that; other States are not. So 

we—the heart of the report is drawn from those examples and 

those best practices. 

One thing I certainly will take away is that we need to be more 

precise in our discussion about the effort to identify best practices 

and this inclusiveness that we call for. I understand you’re hearing 

it as standards, maybe regulations, that kind of thing. What we’re 

really doing is hearing the industry and others who, I think, have 

learned a bit from the public concern over fracking fluids. Industry 

now themselves are saying, ’’My goodness. Why—why did—why did 

we hold back so long before we all just got behind the idea of disclosure?’’ 

So what’s at the heart of our recommendation here is to say let’s 

learn from that. Let’s find places where people can genuinely have 

the information to understand. If we do, if you do that, then we 

think that there are plenty of ways people agree and find the common ground to move forward. 

Mr. YERGIN. I think that that’s an important clarification because we’re not recommending that the existing standard setting 

groups be, you know, something new on top of that. 

In best practices, what we’re really trying to do is create an ongoing process for discussion among the players and the participants 

in this, so that that knowledge, whether they’re companies, regulators, communities that they’re all aware of it, and that best practices are evolving and that’s the kind of forums that we were talk-
40 

ing about getting. So it wasn’t to say that there needs to be yet 

somebody setting standards. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Dr. Zoback. 

Mr. ZOBACK. If I may. For—it’s fairly obvious by this point that 

our committee was—was—was not charged with the question of 

who should be regulating what and we—we certainly stayed away 

from that issue. But—but the thing we are concerned about is implementation of our recommendations. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Um-hmm. 

Mr. ZOBACK. So with—without then getting into who and how 

our recommendations should be implemented we—we came upon 

this idea of organizing for best practice as a way of bringing the 

stakeholders, you know, in—into the process to look at our recommendations and see how they could implemented. We, you 

know, we simply didn’t have the charge, the expertise or—or it was 

not our role to—to say how they should be implemented, but we 

very much want to see them implemented. 

So this idea of organizing for best practice was—was a step we 

could take without sort of exceeding the—the bounds of our—of our 

charge. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shaheen, you—you’re sort of the clean 

up batter here. You go—go ahead and ask what questions you 

have. Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I—I apologize to the panel for being late. I had to preside over 

the Senate and unfortunately, I don’t get a pass for that to come 

to the hearing. With the help of my staff, hopefully, I will not duplicate too many of the questions that have already been asked. 

Do want to point out that I—I chair subcommittee on water and 

power, and we’re hoping to do a follow up hearing to the hearing 

this morning to look at the impact of fracking on production of 

shale gas in the Eastern United States where, I think, some of the 

issues may be a little different than in other parts of the country. 

So hopefully, we can get in even in greater detail into some of the 

issues that you all are exploring this morning. 

Ms. McGinty, given the impact that a fracking job gone bad can 

have on families, should we consider requiring the industry to go 

beyond today’s best practices? You were talking about the importance of getting everybody together and actually being transparent 

about those best practices. 

But how do we ensure that that actually happens, that complacency doesn’t set in? That we don’t have those examples where 

some corporate citizens or for whatever reason, may not be following best practices? 

Ms. MCGINTY. Senator, I think it’s essential that—that continuous improvement not just be a buzzword. I would say that in our 

meetings with industry, I think they feel the importance of this too, 

that with the concern over fracking fluids, for example, they 

learned a lesson that a bunker mentality does not work in furthering the industry. But—but we need to be genuinely be serious 

about continuing to advance the ball. So, what are some of the 

things that are very important? 
41 

You’re looking at water—the water energy nexus. It’s important 

to say that shale operations are a tiny fraction, generally, of the 

water consumed in a given location. However, the water needed to 

produce a shale well is still an order of magnitude greater than the 

water needed to produce a conventional well. So that says whether 

someone’s requiring it or not, the community will expect a level of 

responsibility in the use of a water resource. It’s in everyone’s interest that we move to more efficient ways of handling and using 

water. 

That community has concerns not only about what is being put 

down in the well, but they’d like to know what’s coming out. Can 

we understand the full lifecycle of that water? I’ll say, one of the 

recommendations we make in our report, that some in industry 

have said, ‘‘Well, that might be too expensive and there might be 

a better way of doing it,’’ is we—we’ve talked about tracking and 

manifesting the water from the time it’s withdrawn to the time it’s 

used to produce the well. From the time it comes out, et cetera, to 

its final disposition; tracking and manifesting. We talk about, 

maybe there’s a better approach. 

But it gets to your question, it’s about demonstrating to the public every day that there’s nothing to hide. We’re not going to hide 

it. We’re going to continuously improve our performance. 

Senator SHAHEEN. One of the things that I have certainly noticed 

in talking to business folks about water use is that whenever they 

have to pay for water use that that significantly changes the way 

they actually use the water. People try to be much more efficient 

about water usage when there’s some cost involved. 

Can you talk about whether—whether you found that to be true 

as you’ve looked at companies and they’re using fracking to 

produce shale gas? 

Any of you? Dr. Zoback, do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. ZOBACK. I think that statement is—is generally true and— 

and, you know, economics is often a good driver. 

The expense of hauling flow back water from Pennsylvania to 

Ohio because of the lack of—of permitted injection wells perhaps 

was one of the motivations for the reuse of water and recycling 

frack fluids. It was the driver, but ultimately it produced something that was not only good for the, you know, the economics of 

the development but it was also good for the environment. So often, 

you know, multiple goods can come from—from, you know, opportunities like—like the one you’re mentioning. 

Other opportunities are the one I cited where when you’re drilling many wells and doing many fracks at a single site, it might 

even be efficient to drill a well into a saline aquifer and use a local 

supply of water that’s unfit for any other purpose to do the 

fracking. So all sorts of things, all sorts of possibilities arise. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Given that there are reports of wastewater 

that’s being disposed of in inappropriate ways, sent to treatment 

facilities not equipped to handle the type of waste, whatever. Is— 

do we have enough information about how the wastewater is being 

handled to be able to reassure the public that they are not in any, 

or not being exposed to any harm as the result of how the 

wastewater’s being handled? 
42 

Ms. MCGINTY. Senator, I do think that there is need for more 

transparency there. Referencing before whether it’s tracking or 

manifesting or some other way to give the public confidence that 

the water is properly being handled. If I could jump in on what Dr. 

Zoback said ’cause I think he touched an important point in terms 

of the economics of water and how it impacts whether or not we 

might have innovation and better environment performance. 

I do think it’s tough for companies out there right now who are 

building on the success that Dr. Zoback talked about where we are 

recycling and concentrating the brines of the flow back water. Will 

we go the next step and then actually fully remove the brine so you 

have discharge quality water and can put it back into the water 

table or into surface water? 

There’s lots of companies out there, Dr. Holditch was saying the 

other day, how impressed he is. He has somebody knock on his 

door every day. They’ve got—they’ve got the answer. Many of them 

do, technically. The economics are really tough. They’re tough when 

there is an abundant water resource. They’re tough when there’s 

the ability just underground inject the—the produced fluids. 

They’re tough when there isn’t some other driver that says, ‘‘Let’s 

put a premium on conservative management of water.’’ 

So I do think that there’s going to be need for some kind of new 

factor involved here, whether it’s economic or policy or what have 

that enables some of these newer technologies to bring us to the 

next level—level of water treatment and conservation. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Yes. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Can I make a statement? 

Senator SHAHEEN. Dr. Holditch. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. —I’m in the petroleum engineering department 

and I have a lot of people come talk to me about their technologies, 

and I’ve visited with 2 companies just last week. One has already 

built a plant north of Denver the—and they’re about to build a 

plant in South Texas, and they’re going to take not only flow back 

water from frack fluids, but they’re going to take produced water. 

The industry produces about 3 times more water than it does hydrocarbon. They’re building a plant with a new technology to take 

the produced water, clean it up so it can be fresh, good enough to 

be fresh water, and then they’re going to take—take out the impurities and the salt, and sell the salt. 

So there’s a lot of entrepreneurs out there right now trying to 

take this problem we have and turn it into businesses. So I think 

the American entrepreneurship is going to help solve a lot of these 

issues in the first short term. 

Mr. YERGIN. Just to add that the, you know, the whole shale gas 

development was about 20, over 2 decades to actually go from, you 

know, trying to make it work to work, and then it’s only been 2008 

when we’ve had this incredible growth in it. So, I think this process 

of—and a lot of—so we’re talking about best practices, we’re also 

talking about technological innovation and the 2 being linked. This 

is about the advance of technology and these issues have been identified. As Professor Holditch says, people are now focused on finding the technologies to address these issues. You know, that will— 

that’s where the real solutions will come. 
43 

Senator SHAHEEN. Sure. One of—and again, I apologize if this 

has already been raised but one of the—when I was Governor in 

New Hampshire, we had an issue around a water bottling plant 

that was going to take significant amounts of groundwater, and 

there were no regulations or policy had not really looked at that 

issue because the technology had gotten ahead of where the policies 

in the State were. 

Is that where we are with this technology? Do States need to reexamine their policies around how we regulate or incentivize shale 

gas production in a way that addresses some of these concerns? 

Mr. YERGIN. I think one of the conclusions we came to, and while 

you were presiding there this morning, we were talking about it is 

that, in fact, there is a very well-developed State regulation of oil 

and gas. There’s a kind of perception, though, that it doesn’t exist, 

and that that is the foundation for it. 

Obviously, there are 2 best practices we talk about, this group 

called STRONGER helping the States that are newer to the field 

gain expertise and knowledge about how to—to do it. But that 

seems to be the foundations on—on which—which we’re working, 

but it is to enhance the capabilities of, call it, the new entrants. 

Mr. ZOBACK. One—one area in which progress could be made is 

in lessening cumulative impacts of shale gas development and 

that’s something we address in the report and water is central to 

that. That water resources be—be managed more on a regional 

than on a well specific scale. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. 

Mr. ZOBACK. That’s something we emphasize and—and a place 

where organizing for best practice could have a big payoff. 

Ms. MCGINTY. I—I do think this is an area where there is an opportunity for growth and improvement in terms of approach; some 

basics things. 

State of Texas, for example, has most or all of the water resources in the State mapped; some other States do not. Now in 

Texas when you get your permit to drill that well, the State knows 

exactly what the depth of that water resource is and therefore says 

on the cementing and casing issue, they know exactly where you 

need the most protection. In other States, that information is not 

available and industry has to figure it out as they go, things like 

that just very important. 

I know also that in some States there are tools that can look at 

the quantity of water withdrawn, but in other States, there may be 

authority over quality, protecting the quality of water but the situation in terms of quantity is whoever has the biggest straw wins. 

So, I know in Pennsylvania that we just had to figure it out in the 

western part of the State because we did not have a tool going into 

the development of the resource and—and needed to invent one. 

So I think it’s an area where the sharing of experience among 

States and a real and sincere focus on best practice and continuous 

improvement is important. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you’ve been very 

tolerant, but can I ask one final question? 

The CHAIRMAN. You—you can. Go—go right ahead. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I’ve gone significantly over my time but this 

is just kind of a throw it out. I don’t know if you, anybody has a 
44 

view on this but as, I’m sure you’re aware, in recent months there 

has been some media attention to whether or not the amount of 

shale gas reserves in the country are really as high as some of the 

initial industry estimates have been. Concern that they may not 

provide the production levels anticipated because of the inability to 

access them. 

Does any—do any of you on the panel have a viewpoint about 

that issue? Something totally outside your report. 

Mr. HOLDITCH. Shale gas is—is for real. I mean, I’ve—I’ve looked 

at a lot of wells in—in production, and done engineering, and computed reserves and there it’s—it’s a game changer for this nation. 

If you take the—the shale gas that we’re going to produce and use 

it for electricity and natural gas vehicles, you take the same technology on horizontal drilling and fracturing and—and you look at 

South Texas, West Texas, even Ohio now in the Utica Shale and 

Bakken, the oil production is going up in the United States for the 

first time in—in 20 or 30 years. Dr. Yergin can tell you a whole 

lot more about it than I do. 

We—we’re going to lessen our—our reliance on imported oil in 

the next 5 years. It’s—it’s just going to knock your socks off. It’s 

going to be a game changer. It’s really going to help our economy. 

Dr. Yergin and his company is probably the best in the world at 

evaluating this, so I’ll let—let him kind of close it out. 

Mr. YERGIN. Yes, I think the—the discussion about this has been 

pretty confusing. I mean, even some of the reports that one has 

seen that if you, is it apples and oranges that are being compared? 

It’s very hard to tell. But the U.S. Geological, the one that was 

cited was actually the one that was supposedly the lower estimate 

was 40 times larger than their estimate of 10 years ago. 

So I think the general view among professional geologists, the 

people who do this is that this is a very large resource. As Professor Holditch has—will—has instructed, not all wells are economic, not all of them, the shales are not evenly distributed in 

terms of the amount of gas. But every day, it seems, is the sense 

of the resource grows and we’re seeing other regions of the world, 

of the United States and certainly other regions of the world. 

So I think what President Obama said in his remarks that 100 

years of supply is a—is a—is a pretty good guide. I know companies are finding when they acquire resources that, in fact, is they 

learn how to produce it. You know, reserves are not a finite concept. They’re dependent upon economics and technology. They 

found that actually the resource is even larger. 

So the numbers that are there are just, when we thought just 5 

years ago, we’re going to be importing all this LNG ’cause we didn’t 

have any natural gas. It turns out to be a very different picture. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you all. I think it’s 

been a very useful hearing. We appreciate. 

That will conclude our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(45) 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY’S SUBCOMMITTEE ON SHALE GAS

PRODUCTION TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Based on the 90-day summary that you are here testifying about— 

I have a good idea of what efforts can be undertaken to ensure safe, sustainable 

domestic shale gas production. What’s next for you all and this subcommittee? 

You’ve indicated that there is a second part you are working on—more like a 180- 

day report. Can you elaborate a little bit more about what we can expect in the second half of this report? What resources, if any, do you need to complete the report? 

Answer. The Subcommittee submitted its final report on November 18, 2011, and 

disbanded. The final report focused on implementation of the recommendations presented in its first report. The final report is available at www.shalegas.eneray.gov. 

Stakeholder Feedback 

Question 2. Have you received much of a reaction to your study from public stakeholders? Other stakeholders? Can you elaborate on what the public’s reaction has 

been? 

Answer. Public comment was solicited at every stage of the Subcommittee’s work. 

DOE maintained a website (www.shalegas.energy.gov) and received over 39,000 

public comments throughout the process. Those comments may be viewed via the 

website and summaries of the comments are also provided. The Subcommittee is 

gratified by the generally favorable reception its reports have had from state and 

federal agencies, industry, and public interest groups. The composition of the Subcommittee has been criticized by some as including too many individuals with ties 

to industry and by other as not including enough individuals who have experience 

in industry. 

Regulatory Revision 

Question 3. Your report calls for public disclosure and open access to information 

critical to shale gas extraction—like the composition hydraulic fracturing fluids. You 

go further to mention the need for perhaps more standard regulations related to 

protecting water resources and air quality. Are you suggesting any new regulations 

in particular? Are these at the state or federal level (or both)? 

Answer. Since DOE is not a regulatory agency, the Subcommittee avoided consideration of regulatory design. The Subcommittee made recommendations to strengthen regulatory controls and to improve public access to information, but it is up to 

the relevant regulatory agencies and other policy makers to decide how to implement those recommendations. 

Question 4. You mentioned the need to collect baseline date prior to the onset of 

shale gas development activities. Should the collection of baseline data be made 

mandatory by the states as early as the permitting process, like under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, Underground Injection Control Program? In areas where shale 

gas development is underway, how should operators and regulators address the 

need for baseline data . . . is it too late to get this information? 

Answer. The Subcommittee strongly believes that having baseline information is 

important to accountability, but also recognizes that there are practical obstacles to 

its collection. In many cases such as background water quality measurements, it is 

not collected in a timely way. The Subcommittee recommends background data collection should be adopted as a best practice. 

Question 5. I see that the Subcommittee made recommendations regarding the 

adoption of best practices. What steps should be taken to ensure that these best 

practices are adopted and utilized? Should there be any enforcement mechanism put 

in place to ensure the use of these best practices? 
46 

Answer. These are excellent questions, for which the Subcommittee did not prescribe definitive answers. For improvements in best practices to occur, the Subcommittee recommended that industry lead a multi-stakeholder process to answer 

these questions and develop a rigorous and credible system of continuous improvement. The Subcommittee favored a national approach to an industry best-practice 

organization but recognized that differences in state regulation and regional shale 

plays argued for a more decentralized approach. Industry is proceeding on a regional approach around centers of excellence. 

Water Quality 

Question 6. There has been considerable media attention to the issue of shale gas 

production, especially since the documentaries ’’Gasland’’ and ’’Haynesville’’ came 

out about shale gas development and its impacts on the communities and the environment around the shale gas production sites. Can one of you elaborate as to what 

is happening when I see videos of citizens who can light their tap water on fire? 

Is that gas related to shale gas production? Can you elaborate on this a bit? How 

might that gas have reached the fresh water aquifer? 

Answer. The Subcommittee did not investigate specific incidents but received considerable public comment about them. EPA’s water study may provide more definitive information and it is investigating several incidents under CERCLA, such as 

the recently released report on Pavillion, Wyoming. 

Question 7. What are the barriers to implementing saline water usage for fracturing rather than simply using freshwater resources? What are the benefits and 

are there any potential negative impacts? 

Answer. The Subcommittee did not address this question. Generally speaking, 

companies work within the applicable regulations in deciding on water usage. 

Question 8. Why is recycling flowback water for reuse more common in the northeast part of the US, versus other geographic regions in the US where oil and gas 

operations are taking place? 

Answer. The allocation of flow-back and produced water for reuse depends on local 

circumstances that vary widely in different shale plays across the country in terms 

of amount of water produced, availability of new water, alternatives for treatment 

and disposal. 

It seems that a central message of the Subcommittee’s report is that we need to 

look at the use of water in shale gas production operations from ’’cradle to grave’’ 

to make sure that both water quantity and quality are taken into account. 

Question 9a. Do you care to comment on this observation? 

Question 9b. Do other members of the panel have a view on this? 

Answer. The Subcommittee believed that cradle to grave (system) management is 

an essential feature to effectively managing the environmental impact of water 

usage. All members of the Subcommittee agreed to the two reports and all of the 

recommendations. 

Air Quality 

Question 10. Your 90-day report recommends reducing air emissions from shale 

gas production. The EPA recently issued draft rules to control air emissions from 

oil and gas production, transmission and storage. Do you think these rules go far 

enough to address the concerns you outlined in your report? If not, what additional 

controls might you recommend? 

Answer. The Subcommittee is pleased to see regulatory agencies addressing these 

issues, but it was not our task to evaluate specific regulations or regulatory policy 

questions. The Subcommittee made certain recommendations, for example a comprehensive study of the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas production, which 

go beyond EPA’s present plans. 

Abandoned Wells & Safety 

Question 11. An area of some concern when gas developers are going into an area, 

such as the Marcellus shale, is the occurrence of abandoned wells from oil and gas 

production that happened earlier in the 20th century. Do you think abandoned wells 

pose a problem for environmental and human health and safety? How would you 

recommend we address locating and properly plugging these wells? 

Answer. Abandoned wells are a general problem for the oil and gas industry that 

will require attention by regulators and industry. Abandoned wells are a specific 

problem for new hydraulic fracturing operations in all areas. Plugging new shale 

gas wells is a matter for state and federal regulation. 

Question 12. There have been quite a few onshore well blowouts (at least three 

notable cases) in the past year, in areas where shale gas production is occurring. 

Did you look into the cause of these blowouts? Did you consider whether these were 

the result of operator error, shortcomings in the regulations themselves, failure by 
47 

the state regulator to adequately enforce regulations, or perhaps a combination of 

many of these issues? 

Answer. The Subcommittee did not investigate specific blowout incidents. 

EPA Study on Hydraulic Fracturing 

Question 13. The EPA is on track to have the results of their hydraulic fracturing 

study/research out by spring or summer of 2014. How does your report fit into that 

study? Did you work with the EPA when you were conducting the 90-day study? 

Do you think your recommendations will change at all based on the type of study 

they are undertaking? Do you think that the study they are undertaking is robust 

enough to adequately address many (or most) of the issues you raise in your report? 

Answer. The Subcommittee consulted frequently with EPA officials throughout 

the process and was thoroughly briefed about the EPA study. Our study was produced on a much shorter time frame and addressed a broader range of issues, not 

just water quality, and so is complementary to EPA’s work in many ways. In its 

second ninety day report the Subcommittee urged EPA to release information and 

regulatory guidance in the course of its water quality study. 

Methane Leakage 

Question 14. There have been several papers out in the past year that have highlighted the problem of natural gas leakage during the extraction process. The authors of these studies point out that if there is a large amount of methane leakage 

during the extraction of the resource, the overall carbon footprint of using natural 

gas could be much higher than we would expect if you consider just the point of 

combustion. Could one of you comment on how good our data is on methane leakage? Also, could you provide an assessment on whether or not there are ways that 

we could improve data collection about leakage and work to curtail methane leakage 

during natural gas extraction? 

Answer. The Subcommittee believes this is an area where there are significant 

data gaps and much more research needs to be done to assemble reliable data and 

explore best practices for dealing with leakage issues. In our first 90 day report, we 

made three recommendations that bear on this question: 

(1) Enlisting a subset of producers in different basins to design and rapidly 

implement measurement systems to collect comprehensive methane and other 

air emissions data from shale gas operations and make these data publically 

available; 

(2) Immediately launching a federal interagency planning effort to acquire 

data and analyze the overall greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas operations 

throughout the lifecycle of natural gas use in comparison to other fuels; and 

(3) Encouraging shale-gas production companies and regulators to expand immediately efforts to reduce air emissions using proven technologies and practices.’’ 

Question 15. You mention in your testimony that the most important thing to ensure water-safe operations is to have sound well casing and cementing. How can we 

ensure that this takes place? Is this currently being regulated adequately by the 

states? 

Question 15a. Do other members of the panel have an opinion on this? 

Answer. Both regulators and industry play important roles in ensuring that well 

casing and cementing operations are done safely and soundly. All members of the 

Subcommittee agree with this point. 

RESPONSES OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY’S SUBCOMMITTEE ON SHALE GAS

PRODUCTION TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. There has been significant controversy over expenditures on programs 

for the promotion of ‘‘green jobs.’’ Given the transformative effect that expanded natural gas production is already having on our economy, in addition to the environmental benefits derived from using natural gas for power generation and eventually 

transportation, isn’t the U.S. essentially a green jobs world powerhouse already? 

Answer. The Subcommittee agrees that natural gas production has had enormous 

benefits for the nation, including very significant contributions to employment, and, 

if environmental concerns can be managed responsibly, that its potential will continue to grow. 

Question 2. Here on Capitol Hill, China has become something of a fascination. 

We regularly hear that the federal government has to spend what China spends, 

on the technologies China spends on, in order to keep up in the so-called clean energy race. What do you think about that approach? Is it a wise decision—or a smart 
48 

strategy—for the U.S. to view our energy supply as a race, let alone a government 

spending-based race that’s driven by decisions made in China? 

Answer. These are important questions, but are beyond the scope of the Subcommittee’s work. 

Question 3. In your new book you have a couple of very interesting chapters on 

China. In America, China is often cited as the leader in green energy with whom 

we have to keep up. Also here in the U.S., many oppose domestic production of oil 

and gas as a tactic to promote alternatives. In China’s push for alternative energy, 

are they restricting the development of fossil fuels to promote the green energy or 

are they proceeding to develop all energy fronts? 

Answer. The Subcommittee’s work focused on methods of making shale gas production safer and more environmentally sound in the U.S. and did not investigate 

practices in China. 

Question 4. In the New York Times editorial about the SEAB report, second-tolast paragraph states, ‘‘The panel was largely silent on the question of who should 

regulate the industry. But it made clear that while the industry can do much to improve itself, the EPA, other federal authorities and state regulators must step forward.’’ That’s the New York Times’ analysis—that the EPA should take a lead role 

in regulation. Do you agree? If we want to ensure our shale gas resources are produced at a rate which keeps pace with cleaner energy demand, which agency or 

combination of agencies would be best? 

Answer. The Subcommittee did not address the balance of responsibility between 

state and federal regulation. The states have historically been the principal regulator of oil and gas development on nonfederal lands. Numerous other regulatory 

functions are managed through a complex system of shared and delegated federal/ 

state programs. The Subcommittee’s second ninety day report did note that it has 

‘‘unease that the present arrangement of shared federal and state responsibility for 

cradle-to-grave water quality is not working smoothly or as well as it should.’’ 

Question 5. I am interested to learn more about the Subcommittee recommendation to create a shale gas industry production organization, dedicated to continuous 

improvement of best practice through the development of standards. I agree that it 

makes sense to encourage best practices in the industry and that this gives the regulators and the public the confidence that the industry is self-policing and operating 

in the safest and most responsible manner. I am curious as to why the report does 

not acknowledge the already existing standards setting bodies, such as API and 

AGA. These organizations have already developed many standards related to hydraulic fracturing and are in the process of developing many more. It seems totally 

inefficient to require that an entirely new standard setting body be created. Is the 

lack of acknowledgement of these standards setting bodies an indication that you 

do not believe that they are sufficient? 

Question 5a. The Subcommittee envisions that this new industry organization 

would be made up of member companies, NGOs and academic institutions, but does 

not mention any form of federal involvement. I wonder if the Subcommittee deliberately did not include the federal government in its list of prospective participants 

and for what reason it was excluded? 

Answer. The Subcommittee did not exclude involvement of federal agencies in its 

consideration of its best practice organization models. There certainly should be a 

role for DOE, D0I, EPA, and USGS in the activities of such industry organizations. 

The Subcommittee heard from the API in its public meeting and several members 

are familiar with the very valuable API and AGA standard setting activities. The 

Subcommittee stressed the importance of measurement and disclosure as central to 

monitoring improvement in practice and reduction in environmental impact. The 

Subcommittee has the impression that measurement and disclosure is not a central 

aspect of the current API and AGA standard setting activities. 

You talk at length about the need for best practices in casing and cementing. You 

mention the fact that the API has a casing and cementing standard (API Standard 

65-2), but then fail to comment on whether the API standard is sufficient, and if 

not, why not. The API casing and cementing standard covers both onshore and offshore operations and has been adopted into the federal regulations by the Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 

Question 6a. Have you looked at this document? 

Answer. Several members of the Subcommittee have reviewed this API standard. 

Question 6b. My understanding is that this is a robust, technically sound standard 

that is designed to help ensure that methane migration does not occur before, during, and after drilling operations. Do you believe that this standard is insufficient? 

As mentioned above this standard does not have measurement and disclosure as 

a part of the standard. 
49 

Question 6c. If so, do you think that the federal government made a mistake in 

adopting it into regulation? 

Answer. The Subcommittee’s task was to offer recommendations for ways to improve the safety and environmental performance of shale gas production and we believe that measurement and disclosure standards, if implemented, will have a beneficial effect. 

Given that the Subcommittee membership includes the President of the Environmental Defense Fund, the head of the Pennsylvania EPA, and a well known environmental consultant, yet no active industry representative, there have been questions as to whether there exists any inherent bias amongst the Subcommittee members towards or against expanded natural gas development. Please explain how each 

member of the Subcommittee came to be a part of this Subcommittee. 

Question 7a. Please explain how the panel is structured, what, if any, was the 

procedure for vetting the candidates, and whether adequate safeguards against bias 

or conflict of interests in the membership were taken? 

Question 7b. If the members of the Subcommittee are not members of the SEAB, 

please describe who they are and whether they are deemed Special Government 

Employees, or Representatives. 

Question 7c. Are the members on the Natural Gas Subcommittee identified anywhere within the FACA Database? If not, please explain why? If they are included, 

does the database identify their start and end date, their appointment type and 

term, as well as their pay plan (if any)? 

Question 7d. Was the industry feedback solicited throughout the investigative 

process, and was industry input researched and considered, when not solicited? 

Answer. The Subcommittee was selected by the Department of Energy and included members with experience in industry, the environmental community and 

states. Members were evaluated for conflicts of interest and agreed to recuse themselves if any such issues arose. As is typical with Secretary of Energy Advisory 

Board subcommittees, some members were not SEAB members but were drawn 

from the outside; they are not special government employees. The members of the 

Subcommittee are publicly listed on the SEAB website, including their biographical 

information (http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/aboutus/members.html). The selection 

of the Subcommittee members was also publicly announced by the Departmental on 

May 5, 2011. Members of the Subcommittee who are also members of the Secretary 

of Energy Advisory Board are listed in the FACA database with all of the required 

information. However, members of subcommittees that are not members of the full 

committee are not required to be in the FACA database and are not listed there. 

All members began Subcommittee work on May 18, 2011, and ended work on November 18, 2011, and all were unpaid but per diem expenses were reimbursed. 

As mentioned above, the balance of the membership of the Subcommittee was 

much criticized and thousands of the public comments received focused on the membership. The vast majority of those comments criticized the panel as too closely tied 

to industry. 

Question 8. In the report, the subcommittee states that it will not weigh in on 

whether the States or the federal government should have the lead in regulating 

natural gas development. Yet, from a practical standpoint, shouldn’t we first know 

whether the States are effectively regulating natural gas development, or whether 

the State/federal mix is appropriately balanced? 

Question 8a. Should we not first complete a gap analysis of the regulations to determine whether the regulations are effective before making recommendations to 

change those regulations? 

Question 8b. Isn’t this the primary issue in front of us—whether the States are 

effectively regulating natural gas development? 

Question 8c. If so, then how could the subcommittee not answer this question? 

Answer. These are important questions that must be addressed by a group that 

has broader sponsorship than the DOE, which does not have regulatory responsibility. The Subcommittee did confer with the EPA, BLM and USGS and with a number of state regulatory authorities to learn how the regulatory process for shale gas 

production was evolving in the field. 

Question 9. You provide many recommendations in your report, but for each recommendation you have not consistently described what is currently being done in 

the particular area. For example, you recommend that air regulation should be improved to minimize pollution of methane and other air pollutants. Yet EPA currently regulates air pollution and methane emissions though New Source Performance Standards, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In fact, EPA recently proposed a rule that 

is designed to significantly decrease methane emissions. Your report inaccurately 

stated that the new EPA rule is not designed to address methane emissions, yet the 
50 

rule is designed to do exactly that. In fact, the rule is designed to decrease methane 

emissions related to the hydraulic fracturing process. Will the 180 day report reflect 

this point and correct the mischaracterization of the rule? 

Answer. There are no National Ambient Air Quality Standards for methane. 

EPA’s proposed New Source Performance Standards and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the oil and natural gas sector do not establish 

emission limits or standards for methane. The proposed rule contains emission limits for VOCs and EPA has recognized ‘‘many of the proposed requirements for control of VOC emissions also control methane emissions as a co-benefit.’’ 76 Fed. Reg. 

at 52,756. We agree that these are interesting and important questions. The Subcommittee did not attempt in the short time given to it to conduct a survey of the 

history or content of every aspect of shale gas production and regulation. 

Question 10. I agree with the finding of the report that resources dedicated to the 

oversight of the industry must be sufficient to do the job. But the report goes on 

to suggest that ‘‘fees, royalty payments and severance taxes are appropriate sources 

of funds to finance these needed regulatory activities,’’ and I wonder if you could 

please clarify what you mean by this. Do you mean that the current level of fees, 

royalty payments and severance taxes are sufficient or are you saying that new fees, 

royalty payments and severance taxes are necessary? 

Answer. The Subcommittee’s recommendations are intended to underscore the 

principle that direct costs of the regulatory process should be part of permitting 

charges granted to licenses. There is a broader question about the general level of 

taxation of resource extraction that the Subcommittee did not address. 

The Subcommittee recommends that states and localities adopt systems for measurement and reporting of background water quality in advance of shale gas production activities, but I wonder if the Subcommittee has evaluated how much this 

would cost and if it would even be feasible, given the various constraints that states 

and localities face. The report finding is that baseline measurements should be publicly disclosed while protecting landowner’s privacy, yet there is no recommendation 

or discussion as to how this might be practicably accomplished. How can a policy 

protect landowner’s privacy, and the value of that land, in the event that the baseline data would show very low quality water? One central theme of our recommendations is that development and disclosure of information is useful and necessary. Shale gas production has significant and undeniable benefits for the country, 

but controversy arises in part because of lack of information and attendant suspicions. We believe that information can improve public perceptions and improve 

both the production and regulatory processes. We firmly believe that if you measure 

something, you can improve it. In particular, gathering baseline information about 

water quality before production activity begins would resolve the frequent conflict 

between landowners alleging that their water has been contaminated and companies claiming the contamination was preexisting. We also recognize that there are 

difficulties in obtaining this information. 

Question 11. I am concerned that there may be a lack of coordination between the 

SEAB review effort and the ongoing studies undertaken by EPA and by the BLM. 

Can you please explain what you know about the EPA National Fracking Study and 

about BLM’s preparation of fracking ‘‘regulations’’? 

Question 11a. Has there been any formal or informal coordinating between EPA, 

BLM and your Board regarding fracking analysis? 

Question 11b. What information, if any, related to the EPA fracking Study or the 

BLM effort has been provided to the SEAB? 

Question 11c. Has EPA or BLM solicited any information or requested any consultation from the SEAB? 

Question 11d. Given the budgetary constraints faced by these agencies, do you believe it would be beneficial for federal agencies to work together in addressing these 

issues? 

Question 11e. Do you know if there was data from the EPA or BLM that shows 

that the concerns SEAB raised in their 90-day report have been resolved? 

Question 11f. Could such data impact your 180-day report? 

Answer. The Subcommittee consulted with EPA and the Department of the Interior (both BLM and the U.S. Geological Survey) and was briefed by senior officials 

at each agency. Agency officials appeared at public Subcommittee meetings and provided valuable information (all of 14 which is posted on the website). The Subcommittee understands that DOE, EPA, and Interior are working together on research issues and coordinate on other natural gas issues as they arise. DOE is providing technical assistance to EPA regarding its water study. We understand that 

all three agencies are actively reviewing our recommendations and taking steps to 

implement them as appropriate. 
51 

Question 12. The oil and gas producing states, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which represents those states, and the Groundwater Protection 

Council, among others, have shown persuasive evidence and record that the states 

are in the best position to regulate both oil and natural gas development. You even 

heard from a panel of state regulators who testified directly before the subcommittee that they have the expertise and resources to serve as effective regulators 

and that regulation should remain their responsibility. Do you disagree? Why does 

the report omit comment on this issue? 

Answer. The Subcommittee met with each of these entities and benefitted greatly 

from information provided by them. We agree that a great deal of good work is 

being done by them. We also understood that states have historically been the principal regulator of oil and gas operations on non-federal lands. The Subcommittee 

was not tasked with making regulatory policy decisions so our reports refrained 

from doing so. 

Question 13. Please describe the current safeguards in place to ensure that 

groundwater is protected in areas where fracking is used. 

Answer. The Subcommittee did not in the short time available to it undertake a 

comprehensive survey of such practices, which we understand vary. 

Question 14. Please describe the role of state regulatory bodies in overseeing and 

safeguarding water resources. 

Answer. State regulatory bodies share oversight and enforcement responsibilities 

with the EPA on private land. The DOl’s BLM shares oversight and enforcement 

responsibility with EPA on federal lands. 

Question 15. Please describe the processes generally undertaken once water is recovered through the fracking process. 

Answer. In general terms, flow back and produced water is stored temporarily in 

holding ponds and can potentially follow four different disposal pathways: (1) runoff 

to streams and waterways (almost everywhere prohibited), (2) reused as fracturing 

fluid for new wells, (3) injected in underground disposal wells, and (4) sent to treatment facilities. Each pathway is subject to different regulatory oversight. 

Question 16. Please describe the depths where the shale is generally found, and 

the natural geologic barriers between the areas of exploration and production, and 

the freshwater aquifers supplying drinking water. Do these barriers provide additional protection, to the current safeguards in place, for our water resources? 

Answer. Shale gas formations vary across the country as to depth. The risks to 

drinking water depend upon local circumstances, including surface activity. The 

great majority of shale gas formations being developed are thousands of feet below 

the depth of the water wells. 

Question 17. There does not appear to be any direct recognition in the report of 

states’ ability to quickly adapt to new levels of development and create an effective 

regulatory regime. Having worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, were you able to share with the Subcommittee the strong steps 

taken by the State of Pennsylvania in just the past three years? (For instance, 

Pennsylvania has strengthened its water withdrawal regulations, has strengthened 

its drilling standards, now requires a buffer between operations and streams, has 

increased the fee required for an application for a drilling permit, and has increased 

its staffing from 88 to more than 200.) With Pennsylvania being so close to the center of this public debate, why is there not more discussion in the report of the steps 

taken by Pennsylvania to address many of the concerns raised in your report? Will 

the final report, as an example of how a state is proactively addressing and mitigating the impacts surrounding increased natural gas development, include more 

discussion of Pennsylvania’s approach and experience? 

Answer. The Subcommittee met with the head of Pennsylvania DEP, and with 

regulators from several other states, and has followed the state’s activities regarding 

this issue. Ms. McGinty spoke specifically at the hearing to new measures the commonwealth had announced just the 16 day before the hearing that represent another important contribution to ensuring environmentally sound gas production. 

Question 18. From an emissions standpoint, especially as regards power generation but also as regards fleet vehicles, is it preferable for natural gas supplies, to 

remain accessible and, thereby, abundant? 

Answer. Yes, the Subcommittee agrees that natural gas is a very valuable source 

of energy for the nation for many purposes. 

Question 19. From an emissions standpoint, especially as regards power generation but also as regards fleet vehicles, is it preferable for natural gas prices to remain at or near their current levels of affordability? 

Answer. Lower energy prices benefit the consumer. The Subcommittee did not 

speculate on the likely future trajectory of natural gas prices. 
52 

RESPONSE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY’S SUBCOMMITTEE ON SHALE GAS

PRODUCTION TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR STABENOW

Question 1. In your 90 day report you briefly mention green drilling and fracturing fluids as an area that deserves more R and D. (p.32). What kind of alternative fracturing techniques are available today and how often are they used? 

Answer. The Subcommittee is convinced that industry has the incentive to develop 

and adopt more efficient technical advances that will reduce the actual or potential 

environmental impact of shale gas production—several examples were mentioned in 

the first ninety day report such as real time monitoring of fracturing fluid placement, development of alternative fracturing fluids to water, induced seismicity, and 

so-called ‘‘green’’ fracturing fluids. The Subcommittee believes that the environmental aspects of shale gas development are appropriate subjects for federal research and development work. 

RESPONSES OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY’S SUBCOMMITTEE ON SHALE GAS

PRODUCTION TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MANCHIN

Question 1. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Shale Gas Production Subcommittee (‘‘Subcommittee’’) recommends improving public information about shale 

gas operations through the creation of a new access portal while also recognizing 

the value of expanding and using existing tools such as the Risk Based Data Management System. Has the Subcommittee fully researched whether a mechanism or 

portal currently exists through organizations such as the Interstate Oil and Gas 

Compact Commission that can serve as a central repository of information? 

Answer. The Subcommittee understands that the Ground Water Protection Council, in cooperation with the IOGCC, operates an excellent and continually improving 

database for disclosure of fracturing fluids. We met with both entities and benefitted 

from the information they provided. The Subcommittee called for more expansive 

disclosure of additional types of information from a wide variety of state and federal 

agencies that already collect this information, beyond that which GWPC currently 

contemplates. We believe any other efforts in this area certainly should take into 

account and coordinate with the GWPC website and be complementary to it. 

Question 2. The Subcommittee believes the creation of a new shale gas industry 

production organization dedicated to continuous improvement of best practice is necessary. Did the Subcommittee fully consider what organizations currently exist that 

could perform the function? 

Answer. Yes, the Subcommittee considered a wide variety of possible organizational arrangements. For example, the Subcommittee had the benefit of information 

and briefings from API, which has managed a valuable standardization effort for 

many years. On balance, the Subcommittee believes a new industry led initiative 

is justified, emphasizing measurement, disclosure and use of these measurements 

to document a progress improvement in practice and environmental action. 

Question 3. The Subcommittee is charged with identifying measures to improve 

the safety of shale gas production. Has the Subcommittee considered the operational 

onsite safety procedures and specifically, identification of a framework within which 

safety standards and procedures for each phase of the activity can best be established and impleriiented across the industry? Will the best practice recommendations address training aspects for workers and emergency response teams when accidents occur? 

Answer. The Subcommittee did not attempt to provide detailed guidance on the 

specific content of operational safety or training procedures. 

Question 4. Has the Subcommittee fully considered the application of existing 

laws and regulations for protecting air quality and water quality? 

Answer. In the short time available to us, we did not conduct a detailed survey 

of applicable law and regulations that apply in this field. 

Question 5. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (‘‘NEIL’’) in Morgantown 

has supported shale gas related research for quite a number of years. Arguably, that 

research has provided some of the underpinnings to the extensive development of 

shale gas resources that is underway today. In fact, the Subcommittee makes note 

of a NETL analysis related to the greenhouse gas footprint for cradle-to-grave use 

of natural gas in its 90 day report. The Subcommittee recommends that additional 

assessment of the greenhouse gas footprint [related to shale gas development] be 

undertaken and that ‘‘a project of this scale will be expensive.’’ 

Answer. The Subcommittee is aware of the depth and variety of expertise at DOE 

and its laboratories, including NETL, as well as expertise in other agencies and research organizations. 

Question 6. Does the Subcommittee recognize that NETL with its university, industry, and national laboratory partners is well positioned to lead such an effort? 
53 

What order of magnitude in terms of funding would the Subcommittee deem appropriate to complete this ‘‘expensive’’ project? 

Answer. The Subcommittee defers to the Administration and Congress on appropriate funding levels, but agrees that the project is a worthy one and that NETL 

is one of several qualified candidates to perform the work. 

Æ