HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: 

BANNING PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES 

ON POSSIBILITIES 

INSTEAD OF PROBABILITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Serial No. 114–16 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: BANNING PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES ON POSSIBILITIES INSTEAD OF PROBABILITIES 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–221PDF 2017

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: 

BANNING PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES 

ON POSSIBILITIES 

INSTEAD OF PROBABILITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Serial No. 114–16 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

April 23, 2015 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Witnesses: 

Ms. Christi Craddick, Chairman, Railroad Commission of Texas 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Dr. Donald Siegel, Chair of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Mr. Simon Lomax, Western Director, Energy in Depth 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 76 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 78 

Mr. Elgie Holstein, Senior Director for Strategic Planning, Environmental 

Defense Fund 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 83 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 85 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 98 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Ms. Christi Craddick, Chairman, Railroad Commission of Texas ....................... 126 

Dr. Donald Siegel, Chair of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University ...................... 136 

Mr. Simon Lomax, Western Director, Energy in Depth ....................................... 165 

Mr. Elgie Holstein, Senior Director for Strategic Planning, Environmental 

Defense Fund ........................................................................................................ 173 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 180 

Documents submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 377 

Document submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 412 

(1) 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: 

BANNING PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES 

ON POSSIBILITIES 

INSTEAD OF PROBABILITIES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing on the science behind hydraulic fracturing. I’ll recognize myself for an opening statement and then the 

Ranking Member. 

The combination of hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling, 

called ‘‘fracking,’’ is arguably one of the most significant technological advancements in the history of the oil and gas industry. 

This technological breakthrough has helped create hundreds of 

thousands of jobs, been the catalyst for a resurging manufacturing 

sector, and has enabled our nation to become more energy independent. But as with any type of technological progress from oil 

and gas development, any risk must be evaluated carefully by the 

use of verifiable science. 

Unfortunately, opponents of hydraulic fracturing make claims 

based on the possibility and not the probability of associated risk. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has used this agenda-driven 

approach to wrongly assert a connection between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination. 

For example, in Parker County, Texas, the EPA issued an ‘‘unprecedented order’’ that halted natural gas development only to 

have the Texas Railroad Commission investigate and find the EPA 

was wrong. In Pavillion, Wyoming, the EPA released a draft report 

that claimed hydraulic fracturing caused water contamination. 

However, it was later discovered that the report had several glaring weaknesses. 

Among them, the report failed to take into account naturally occurring natural gas, it was not peer-reviewed, it involved poor sampling and lacked data transparency. The EPA was forced to abandon its investigation. Then in Dimock, Pennsylvania, the EPA reinitiated an investigation into groundwater contamination after it 

had at first agreed there was no contamination. Seven months 

later, the EPA indicated that oil and gas development was not the 

cause of the contamination. It appears that the decision to reinitiate the investigation was based on political pressure from activists who oppose hydraulic fracturing. 

It is incredible, given their track record, that the EPA is now 

working on another large study to suggest a causal connection between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination. Their 

refusal to accept good science knows no bounds, which is why we 

should be suspect of other findings by the EPA. Their political 

agenda drives their science agenda. 

Perhaps most troubling is that EPA’s study of fracking does not 

include a risk assessment in their analysis. This means the study 

will be focused on possible problems with hydraulic fracturing rather than what is likely or probable. The mere possibility that something may occur will do little to help regulators evaluate the overall process. 

The science overwhelmingly shows that hydraulic fracturing can 

be done in an environmentally safe manner. Even the Administration agrees and has repeatedly said that potential risks can be 

avoided through modern technologies based on sound science. 

President Obama has stated that ‘‘we should strengthen our posi-
9 

tion as the top natural gas producer.’’ And that the natural gas 

boom, made possible by hydraulic fracturing, has led to ‘‘greater 

energy independence, and we need to encourage that.’’ 

In fact, even the current Administrator of the EPA said, ‘‘There’s 

nothing inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering 

practices can’t accomplish.’’ Then why does the EPA repeatedly and 

publicly begin with the premise that hydraulic fracturing causes 

water contamination only to be forced to retract their premise after 

the claims are subjected to scientific scrutiny? Meanwhile, the allegations make headlines; the retractions are footnotes. 

The EPA’s bias against fracking is the opposite of the accepted 

scientific method. Hydraulic fracturing is a proven, safe technology 

that has made America an energy leader. Yet there are still those 

that believe that regardless of the science, the process should be 

banned. 

Activists have spread misinformation about the science in an attempt to convince Americans that there is no way fracking can be 

done safely. The Administration relies on questionable studies and 

reports that are paid for, peer-reviewed by, and disseminated by a 

network of environmentalists with an ideological agenda. 

Using scare tactics to impede the development of oil and gas will 

cost our communities jobs, our states revenue, and will force us to 

increase our dependence on foreign oil. Safe domestic natural gas 

production has benefited the environment, the economy, and the 

hardworking families who now enjoy reduced energy costs. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

The combination of hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling, called ‘‘fracking,’’ 

is arguably one of the most significant technological advancements in the history 

of the oil and gas industry. 

This technological breakthrough has helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs, 

been the catalyst for a resurging manufacturing sector, and has enabled our nation 

to become more energy independent. But as with any type of technological progress 

from oil and gas development, any risks must be evaluated carefully with the use 

of verifiable science. 

Unfortunately, opponents of hydraulic fracturing make claims based on the possibility and not the probability of associated risks. The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has used this agendadriven approach to wrongly assert a connection 

between hydraulic fracturing and ground water contamination. 

For example, in Parker County, Texas, the EPA issued an ‘‘unprecedented’’ order 

that halted natural gas development only to have the Texas Railroad Commission 

investigate and find the EPA was wrong. In Pavillion, Wyoming, the EPA released 

a draft report that claimed hydraulic fracturing caused water contamination. However, it was later discovered that the report had several glaring weaknesses. 

Among them, the report failed to take into account naturally occurring natural 

gas, it was not peer reviewed, it involved poor sampling and lacked data transparency. The EPA was forced to abandon its investigation. Then in Dimock, Pennsylvania, the EPA reinitiated an investigation into ground water contamination 

after it had at first agreed there was no contamination. Seven months later, the 

EPA indicated that oil and gas development was not the cause of the contamination. 

It appears that the decision to reinitiate the investigation was based on political 

pressure from activists who oppose hydraulic fracturing. 

It is incredible, given their track record, that the EPA is now working on another 

large study to suggest a causal connection between hydraulic fracturing and ground 

water contamination. Their refusal to accept good science knows no bounds, which 

is why we should be suspect of other findings by the EPA. Their political agenda 

drives their science agenda. 

Perhaps most troubling is that EPA’s study of fracking does not include a risk 

assessment in their analysis. This means the study will be focused on possible prob-
10 

lems with hydraulic fracturing rather than what is likely or probable. The mere possibility that something may occur will do little to help regulators evaluate the overall process. 

The science overwhelmingly shows that hydraulic fracturing can be done in an environmentally safe manner. Even the Administration agrees and has repeatedly said 

that potential risks can be avoided through modern technologies based on sound 

science. 

President Obama has stated that ‘‘we should strengthen our positon as the top 

natural gas producer.’’ And that the natural gas boom, made possible by hydraulic 

fracturing, has led to ′′greater energy independence, [and] we need to encourage 

that.’’ 

In fact, even the current Administrator of the EPA said, ‘‘There’s nothing inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering practices can’t accomplish.’’ 

Then why does the EPA repeatedly and publicly begin with the premise that hydraulic fracturing causes water contamination only to be forced to retract their 

premise after the claims are put to scientific scrutiny? 

Meanwhile, the allegations make headlines; the retractions are footnotes. The 

EPA’s bias against fracking is the opposite of the accepted scientific method. Hydraulic fracturing is a proven, safe technology that has made America an energy 

leader. Yet there are still those that believe that regardless of the science, the process should be banned. 

Activists have spread misinformation about the science in an attempt to convince 

Americans that there is no way fracking can be done safely. The Administration relies on questionable studies and reports that are paid for, peer-reviewed by, and disseminated by a network of environmentalists with an ideological agenda. 

Using scare tactics to impede the development of oil and gas will cost our communities jobs, our states revenue, and will force us to increase our dependence on foreign oil. Safe domestic natural gas production has benefited the environment, the 

economy and the hardworking families who now enjoy reduced energy costs. 

Chairman SMITH. And that concludes my opening statement, and 

the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, 

is recognized for her opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and let me thank our witnesses for being present. I am from Texas 

and I served with your father, I believe, in the Texas House. He 

was there when I got there and I think he’s still there and I got 

there in ’73. 

I am pleased that the oil and gas industry has done so well and 

most especially during the Obama Administration’s tenure. However, I’m also a nurse by training and I am sensitive to the need 

to protect public health and environment, even as we develop new 

fossil fuels resources. 

This hearing is advertised as being about the science of fracking, 

but the majority’s witnesses consist of state economic regulation 

and development officials representative of a firm that was set up 

to run public relations for the fracking industry and a scientist who 

has been paid by one of the largest fracking firms in the country. 

That does not sound like a promising panel to honestly examine 

the scientific questions. 

Looking at the majority’s hearing materials and testimony, it is 

clear that this is a hearing designed to give a platform for the 

fracking industry to attack those who question the safety and practices within the industry. In particular, there is a focus on undermining local communities that are considering or perhaps have 

adopted limits or bans on fracking. 

More than 500 local communities, including some in my home 

State of Texas, have raised concerns about the practice of fracking 

and have considered or passed bans to restrict fracking activities. 

These are our constituents who are dealing with real issues, real 
11 

environmental and public health implications. We should not belittle or diminish their concerns or simply dismiss them as unsophisticated. Instead, I’m going to suggest that the answer to calming 

the fears of local communities is not to be found in attacking their 

motives or information, but through more transparency by the industry and more effective regulation by states and the Federal 

Government. 

People have concerns about the fracking industry because they 

can see it is largely unchecked. For example, in the State of Colorado with over 52,000 active fracking wells, the State has only 40 

inspectors. West Virginia has 56,000 active wells and as of 2011 

just 20 inspectors. 

Pollution of drinking water, whether from fracking or flawed construction of the well, are from surface waste from the site moving 

into aquifers has occurred at least 248 times between 2008 and 

2014 in Pennsylvania. We actually do not know how many 

incidences in total there have been because the State did not start 

collecting statistics on incidences until 2014. 

If we had more transparency, more accountability, and more 

oversight, local communities would be able to make well-informed 

choices. However, building an oversight hearing around public relations campaigns to dismiss those concerns of local communities not 

only does a disservice to members of this committee, it also does 

nothing to increase the trust of the fracking industry in those communities. 

In closing, I would argue that it is not some hypocritical smear 

campaign by the Federal Government, but rather repeated attacks 

against EPA and campaigns of doubt waged by opaque industry 

that have stoked mistrust along—among the American people. This 

hearing is likely to have the unintended consequence of further 

stoking mistrust among the American people. 

Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ‘‘sunlight is said to be the best 

disinfectant.’’ I can’t agree more. It is time that our local communities are provided with transparent information from industry to 

better understand the environmental and public health risk posed 

by hydraulic fracturing activities. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the problem is not that local communities 

are given bad information from activists; it is that local communities cannot get accurate information about the environmental 

and health impacts resulting from oil and natural gas development 

using high-volume fracking techniques. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:] 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. 

I am from Texas, and like you I am also pleased that the oil and gas industry 

has done so well during the Obama Administration’s tenure. However, I am also a 

nurse by training and I am sensitive to the need to protect the public health and 

the environment even as we develop new fossil fuel resources. 

This hearing is advertised as being about the science of fracking, but the Majority’s witnesses consist of a state economic regulation and development official, a representative of a firm that was set up to run public relations for the fracking industry, and a scientist who has been paid by one of the largest fracking firms in the 
12 

country. That does not sound like a promising panel to honestly examine scientific 

questions. 

Looking at the Majority’s hearing materials and testimony, it is clear this is a 

hearing designed to give a platform for the fracking industry to attack those who 

question the safety of practices within that industry. In particular, there is a focus 

on undermining local communities that are considering, or perhaps have adopted, 

limits or bans on fracking. 

More than 500 local communities, including some in my home state of Texas, have 

raised concerns about the practice of fracking and have considered, or passed, bans 

to restrict fracking activity. These are our constituents, who are dealing with real 

issues, with real environmental and public health implications. We should not belittle or diminish their concerns—or simply dismiss them as unsophisticated. 

Instead, I am going to suggest that the answer to calming the fears of local communities is not to be found in attacking their motives or information, but through 

more transparency by industry and more effective regulation by states and the federal government. 

People have concerns about the fracking industry because they can see it is largely unchecked. For example, in the state of Colorado, with over 52,000 active fracking 

wells, the state has only 40 inspectors. West Virginia has over 56,000 active wells 

and (as of 2011) just 20 inspectors. Pollution of drinking water, whether from 

fracking, or flawed construction of the well, or from surface waste from the site moving into aquifers, has occurred at least 248 times between 2008 and 2014 in Pennsylvania—we actually do not know how many incidents in total there have been because the state did not start collecting statistics on incidents until 2014. 

If we had more transparency, more accountability and more oversight, local communities would be able to make well-informed choices. However, building an oversight hearing around a public relations campaign to dismiss the concerns of local 

communities not only does a disservice to Members of this Committee, it also does 

nothing to increase trust of the fracking industry in thosecommunities. 

In closing, I would argue that it is not some ‘‘hypocritical smear campaign’’ by the 

federal government, but rather repeated attacks against EPA, and campaigns of 

doubt waged by an opaque industry, that have stoked mistrust among the American 

people. This hearing is likely to have the unintended consequence of further stoking 

mistrust among the American people. 

Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ‘‘Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’’ 

I couldn’t agree more. It is time that our local communities are provided with transparent information from industry to better understand the environmental and public health risks posed by hydraulic fracturing activities. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the problem is not that local communities are given bad 

information from activists, it is that local communities cannot get accurate information about the environmental and health impacts resulting from oil and natural gas 

development using high volume fracking techniques. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Now, before I yield back, I want to attach to my statement two studies—excuse me—the Malone and another study and the NRDC issue paper on fracking spills. And I 

ask unanimous consent to attach those. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Let me introduce our witnesses today. And our first witness, Ms. 

Christi Craddick, is Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission. 

Since Ms. Craddick began her role at the Commission in 2012, she 

has pushed to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of an energy industry that is helping to drive the State’s economic success. 

Prior to her tenure at the Texas Railroad Commission, Ms. 

Craddick had a career as an attorney specializing in oil and gas, 

water, tax issues, electric deregulation, and environmental policy. 

Ms. Craddick earned both her bachelor’s degree and her doctor of 

jurisprudence from the University of Texas at Austin. 

Our second witness is Dr. Donald Siegel, and he is the Jessie 

Page Heroy Professor and Department Chair of the Department of 
13 

Earth Sciences at Syracuse University. Dr. Siegel has worked at 

Syracuse University since 1982 and currently teaches elementaryand graduate-level courses in Earth science, groundwater movement, and the faith of contaminants in groundwater. 

Prior to joining Syracuse University, Dr. Siegel worked at the 

U.S. Geological Survey in the Minnesota District. Among many 

other accomplishments, Dr. Siegel has served as a member on numerous panels of the National Academy of Science and is Chair of 

the National Research Council Water Science and Technology 

Board. Dr. Siegel received his bachelor’s degree in geology from the 

University of Rhode Island, his master’s degree in geology from 

Pennsylvania State University, and his doctorate in hydrogeology 

from the University of Minnesota. 

Our third witness, Mr. Simon Lomax, is the Western Director of 

Energy In Depth, a research, education, and public outreach program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Before 

working at Energy In Depth, Mr. Lomax spent 15 years working 

in journalism as the Editorial Director of the ‘‘Energy Now’’ TV 

show and Energy and Environmental Reporter at Bloomberg News 

and a Senior Editor at Argus Media, Inc. Mr. Lomax holds a bachelor’s in journalism from the Queensland University of Technology 

in Brisbane, Australia. 

Our final witness, Mr. Elgie Holstein, is the Senior Director for 

Strategic Planning at the Environmental Defense Fund. Prior to 

joining the Environmental Defense Fund, Mr. Holstein was the 

Senior Advisor to the Obama Presidential Campaign on energy and 

environment policy matters and co-Director of the Department of 

Energy Presidential Transition Team. Among many other roles, 

Mr. Holstein has also held a position of Assistant Secretary of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Chief of 

Staff of the U.S. Department of Energy. 

We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward to 

your testimony. And we’ll begin with Ms. Craddick. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. CHRISTI CRADDICK, 

CHAIRMAN, RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS 

Ms. CRADDICK. Good morning. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the committee, my name is Christi 

Craddick, and as Chairman of the Railroad Commission of Texas, 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony and information 

at today’s hearing. 

This is an important issue with a direct impact on Texas today, 

as well as other states throughout the United States, affecting 

thousands of jobs across the country and our nation’s economy. 

Since hydraulic fracturing has become a widely used practice, it 

has been surrounded by misinformation, propagated by groups 

more interested in prohibiting the technique than understanding 

the complex science of safe and responsible minerals extraction. 

Setting the hyperbole aside reveals a simple truth: There are no 

confirmed instances of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing in Texas. With proper oversight, hydraulic fracturing is safe. 

The thriving energy sector in Texas is due in large part to the 

diligence of the Railroad Commission, which is responsible for en-
14 

suring the safety of oil and gas production statewide through a rigorous process of permitting, monitoring, and inspecting operations. 

For 90 years, the Commission has served as the State’s primary 

regulator of the oil and gas industry and is recognized as a regulatory leader throughout the world. Commission rules and actions, 

grounded in science and fact and combined with almost a century 

of oil and gas regulatory experience, allow us to protect the public 

and our natural resources well. 

The difference in Texas is found in the Commission’s mission 

statement: ‘‘To serve Texas by our stewardship of natural resources 

and the environment, our concern for personal and community 

safety, and support of enhanced development and economic vitality 

for the benefit of all Texans.’’ Sensible, business-minded regulation 

with a high standard for environmental safety allows the oil and 

gas industry to flourish. 

Every aspect of oil and gas development is highly regulated, as 

industry adheres to regulation at the local, state, and Federal levels. While it is in everyone’s best interest the energy industry is 

successful, that is only the case if it operates responsibly and in 

full compliance with our laws, or the Commission will not hesitate 

to revoke their ability to do business in Texas. 

Included in the Railroad Commission’s regulatory responsibility 

is the well completion technique known as hydraulic fracturing. 

For more than 60 years, hydraulic fracturing has been used safely 

and successfully in over 1 million wells around the world, retrieving more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 7—600 trillion cubic feet 

of natural gas. 

The technique involves the process of extracting oil and gas reserves from shale rock layers deep within the Earth’s crust that 

were once unreachable through the use of conventional drilling. 

This precise scientific process combined with horizontal drilling allows for the injection of highly pressurized hydraulic fracturing 

fluids into shale areas. This creates new channels within the rock 

from which oil and gas are extracted at higher rates. 

With ever-evolving industry technology and increased production 

comes a large regulatory workload. Although Texas regulatory 

standards have been in place for almost 100 years, the current energy growth has presented a real opportunity for states to benefit 

from the economic value of the responsible regulation of energy development. 

In an effort to bolster our regulations during this time of considerable growth, the Commission has worked with stakeholders to 

ensure that rules reflect industry’s best practices. As groundwater 

protection remains a key objective to the Commission, major rules 

have focused on this principal charge. 

A keystone to the Commission’s regulatory success is 16 Administrative Code Section 3.13, or Statewide Rule 13. It lays the 

groundwork for the safety of Texas water. Statewide Rule 13 evaluates well integrity, assesses casing, cementing, drilling, well control, and completion requirements, codifying best industry practices. Amended in 2013, the most stringent casing rule in the country went into effect on January 1st of 2014. 

In addition to Statewide Rule 13, before the Commission issues 

a drilling permit, the agency’s Groundwater Advisory Unit will 
15 

send an applicant a letter indicating the base of usable-quality 

water, indicating the level at which an operator must place a cement casing to protect water sources. Wellbore construction and design is highly regulated and technically robust. Groundwater is 

permanently protected by several layers of steel casing and cement, 

as well as thousands of feet of rock. As a result, well failure is extremely rare in Texas. 

While economic gains are meaningless without the safety of our 

communities and resources, hydraulic fracturing bans hurt Texas 

and the energy sector as a whole. Outside interests are taking the 

legitimate concerns of citizens and influencing them in an attempt 

to end fossil fuel production. Many of the concerns of environmental groups raised are factually incorrect or unsubstantiated. 

Without clearly defined regulatory roles for cities, oil and gas development and its ability to anchor the Texas economy is in jeopardy. 

In Texas, bans in industry are a present-day concern. The Railroad Commission though is required by delegated authority to continue issuing oil and gas permits. Over the years, though, oil and 

gas energy companies have extracted oil and gas deposits from 

deep underground. Their operations have often approached city 

boundaries. In those instances, success is found when the industry, 

the Commission, and local authorities work together to implement 

sensible guidelines. This collaboration will disappear in communities where hydraulic fracturing is banned. Without the certainty 

of fair regulation, businesses will be far less willing to risk their 

capital, and as a result, those cities will lose jobs, tax revenue, and 

business development. 

The industry is the greatest economic contributor in Texas, and 

a prime driver in the vitality of the U.S. economy. In a world where 

misinformation and sensationalism too often drive the public discourse, let’s embrace the truth, adopt reasonable approaches to the 

challenges we face, and share the prosperity that follows. 

Thank you for having me this morning. I’ll be glad to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Craddick follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Craddick. And Dr. 

Siegel. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DONALD SIEGEL, 

CHAIR OF EARTH SCIENCES, 

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. SIEGEL. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me? 

Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much 

for inviting me here. 

I present testimony on whether hydraulic fracturing of rocks for 

oil and gas production can, other than in the very rare local situation, degraded the quality of groundwater found in shallow 

aquifers. I offer this testimony entirely on my own behalf. 

Now, the controversy over fracking ranges from concerns over climate disruption to worries about potential lifestyle changes and 

economic inequities. The one issue commonly raised is whether natural gas escaping from gas wells can contaminate drinking water 

aquifers, a concern highlighted by two scientific papers published 

by scientists from Duke University in 2011 and 2012. In these papers, the researchers reported the results of their sampling of 141 

domestic water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania and adjacent 

New York for methane and other substances. They showed a graph 

indicating that higher concentrations of dissolved the natural gas 

occurs in water wells closer to gas wells, and they said their results 

‘‘suggest important environmental risks accompany shale gas exploration worldwide.’’ 

When I read these papers then, I felt that 141 samples were too 

few to make such a sweeping conclusion, and I noticed that a cluster of about a dozen water wells had been sampled near Dimock, 

Pennsylvania, where two gas wells had notably failed and had produced some natural gas contamination, if not anything else. 

Common sense tells me that more natural gas occurs in the 

drinking water near known failed wells, as rare as they might be, 

much as there has to be more smoke near known burning buildings. In essence, the Duke sampling seems statistically biased to 

me and I didn’t think they could say much about the entire population of water wells, let alone anything about shale gas exploration worldwide from such a small data set and that style of sampling. 

Surely after these papers were published, Chesapeake Energy 

Corporation asked me if I would be interested in assisting them to 

do a basic science study on an enormous water quality data set 

they had collected in Pennsylvania and adjacent states. This data 

set had over 34,000 individual samples of groundwater and it’s the 

largest data set I’ve ever seen of its kind for groundwater analysis, 

including when I worked on large regional aquifers for the U.S. Geological Survey. 

You know, people in science talk about what’s a representative 

sample when you want to figure out contamination. The number of 

samples in Chesapeake’s data remarkably captures the true population in parts of Pennsylvania, so I agreed to help them. And we 

published our first paper from this project on March 12 of this year 

in Environmental Science and Technology, a peer-reviewed journal. 
24 

Before I talk about our results, I want to address some issues that 

the press has recently brought up. 

Immediately after we published our paper, certain media challenged whether my co-authors and I had properly divulged our association and payment by Chesapeake Energy Corporation. Please 

keep in mind during the peer-review process, neither our papers’ 

reviewers, the associate editor handling the paper, nor the chief 

editor found fault with our disclosure, and they accepted our paper 

on March 12 of this year. 

Now, I’ve edited many journals myself and I understand disclosure, but in response to media pressures, the journal prudently, as 

I would have done, asked my colleagues and me to expand our disclosure. We did so promptly, and on April 16 our revised manuscript was re-accepted as complete by the journal. Case closed. 

Now, the media also challenged us on how Chesapeake’s consultants sampled the homeowners’ waters for natural gas. The consultants used a widely recommended method used by EPA and various 

state agencies and myself and others for decades. So there is really 

no issue on that. 

What about our results? Well, we cannot repeat Duke’s results. 

We cannot repeat Duke’s results, but instead of using 141 samples, 

we used 11,309 samples in an area within which there were 661 

gas wells. We found high and low concentrations of natural gas 

occur close and far from oil and gas wells with no discernible pattern. Dissolved methane does not inherently increase the closer a 

home is to a gas well. We could easily see this in a graph, but we 

used four robust statistical methods just to confirm it. 

Now, why couldn’t we reproduce Duke’s results? I think that 

Duke researchers just had insufficient number of samples to adequately reflect the actual situation, and that’s what I reported in 

the paper. 

Now, please understand that I know that gas wells can still fail, 

but the Pennsylvania experience shows these situations happen 

rarely, much less than one percent of the time. And our data support these type of low incident rates. But most of all, I’d argue our 

study points to the necessity of not jumping to conclusions about 

contamination of water by anything without getting adequate numbers of samples or at least having a sampling program designed to 

truly characterize the problem. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Siegel follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Siegel. 

And, Mr. Lomax. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. SIMON LOMAX, 

WESTERN DIRECTOR, ENERGY IN DEPTH 

Mr. LOMAX. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, distinguished members of the committee, good morning, and thank you 

for inviting me to testify. My name is Simon Lomax and I am here 

today representing Energy In Depth, an education and outreach 

program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. 

The IPAA represents thousands of oil and natural gas producers 

and service companies who develop 95 percent of the Nation’s oil 

and gas wells. Today, Energy In Depth is releasing a white paper 

called ‘‘A Look inside New York’s Anti-Fracking Echo Chamber.’’ It 

deals with the unprecedented decision of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to effectively ban Marcellus shale development in the 

Empire State through a ban on so-called high-volume hydraulic 

fracturing, or fracking for short. 

I say unprecedented because, according to the Wall Street Journal, New York is the first state with significant shale gas resources 

to ban fracking. Governor Cuomo’s decision was completely at odds 

with earlier findings from state and Federal environmental regulators that hydraulic fracturing has been used safely in the United 

States for decades. In fact, Governor Cuomo’s decision overturned 

two earlier findings from state environmental regulators in New 

York itself in 2009 and 2011 that hydraulic fracturing in the 

Marcellus shale could move forward safely under stringent regulations. 

The reaction to the New York ban has been telling. While some 

fringe environmental groups are celebrating, others in the environmental movement say this simply goes too far. For example, former 

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a major ally of environmental groups, called Governor Cuomo’s decision a misguided policy that ‘‘doesn’t make any sense at all.’’ President Obama’s Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who served on the board of a national 

environmental group before joining the President’s Cabinet, reacted 

by saying fracking bans are ‘‘the wrong way to go.’’ She added that 

supporters of such bans ‘‘don’t understand the science.’’ 

Similarly, California Governor Jerry Brown, a celebrated environmentalist, flatly refused to ban hydraulic fracturing when the 

subject came up recently in an interview on Meet the Press. And 

in Colorado where I live, a special task force convened by Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper recently rejected a New Yorkstyle fracking ban. 

Against that backdrop, the question our white paper seeks to answer is how did Governor Cuomo justify a decision that falls so far 

outside the mainstream? To support the ban, the Cuomo Administration produced a 184-page literature review of recently published 

research papers. But as detailed in our white paper, we discovered 

significant and undisclosed ties between some of the research used 

to ban fracking in New York and the political campaign to ban 

fracking in New York. For example, one paper was written by 

fracking opponent who actually used buckets lined with plastic 

bags to take air samples near oil and gas wells. 
77 

You might think this kind of paper would get shot down in the 

peer-review process, but the peer reviewers were also fracking opponents. One of them was Sandra Steingraber, the cofounder of 

New Yorkers against Fracking, the State’s leading anti-fracking 

campaign group. When asked by a reporter about this, Steingraber 

insisted her peer review was ‘‘absolutely objective.’’ Then, a few 

days after that interview, she gave a speech at a post-ban celebration with anti-fracking activists in Albany where she said ‘‘it is so 

sweet now to come together in one room to tell the story of our victory.’’ 

But there’s more. We found a network of environmentally active 

foundations funding the groups that produced this research paper, 

some of the media outlets that covered the paper, and the campaign organizations that pressured the Cuomo Administration into 

banning fracking. These financial ties totaled $3.7 million at the 

research phase, $2.2 million at the media phase, and more than 

$16 million at the campaign phase. 

This wasn’t an isolated case. We found at least five more research papers cited by the Cuomo Administration where antifracking foundations provide funding to the researchers, funding to 

the media outlets that promoted the research, and funding to the 

campaigns that seized upon the research to drum up political opposition to shale development in New York. 

The anti-fracking work of these foundations was led by the Park 

Foundation based in Ithaca, New York, whose president has openly 

admitted to funding anti-fracking research, media, and political 

campaigning in an effort to oppose fracking ‘‘from every angle.’’ In 

effect, these foundations built an echo chamber to drown out the 

facts in the debate over hydraulic fracturing and Marcellus shale 

development in New York. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lomax follows:] 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Lomax. 

And Mr. Holstein. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ELGIE HOLSTEIN, 

SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING, 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. 

Johnson, members of the committee, for this opportunity to appear 

before you today to discuss the issues associated with unconventional oil and natural gas production. 

The essential question before the Committee is whether it is appropriate for state and local governments to exercise their longstanding traditional authorities—excuse me—in order to ensure 

that their citizens and communities are reasonably protected from 

economic and environmental harm. We believe the answer to that 

question is yes. 

While Environmental Defense Fund has not been engaged directly in the various debates over state and local hydraulic fracturing bans and other restrictions, we believe that many of the 

issues around which those debates revolve are legitimate and do reflect scientifically supportable concerns. 

Unconventional oil and natural gas development is a heavy industrial activity, so it is understandable that states and municipalities are seeking to exercise their traditional role in protecting 

their communities, and I think that response is entirely consistent 

with state and community application of things like zoning, rightto-know laws, industrial safety standards, et cetera. 

Achieving a true balance of interests is critical. That means ensuring that gas is developed responsibly through strong public 

health, safety, and environmental protections. Striking the right 

balance also means continuing to invest in the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy, even as our nation moves to 

dramatically expand our domestic oil and gas resources. 

I’d like to touch on several of the key issues presented by hydraulic fracturing. One is well integrity. It’s true that there has yet 

to be conclusive evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself has caused 

drinking water contamination. However, it is widely understood 

that poor well construction and maintenance can create pathways 

for contamination of groundwater resources by introduced and naturally occurring chemicals. 

Water management: Between one and 5 million gallons of 

fracking fluids are typically used in a hydraulic fracturing operation, and around 800 billion gallons of wastewater are generated 

annually by onshore oil and gas operations in the United States. 

Where that water comes from and how it is managed during storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal are issues of legitimate state and local concern. 

Air quality: Because of intensive shale gas development, the 

small town of Pinedale, Wyoming, has experienced smog concentrations comparable to those of Los Angeles. Polluted air from oil and 

gas operations is a growing concern across the country. In addition, 

methane emissions from natural gas operations are a potent source 

of greenhouse gas pollution. 
84 

Earthquakes: Reports of earthquakes occurring as a consequence 

of hydraulic fracturing are now widespread, including in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Ohio, and Kansas. Whether those earthquakes are the result of high pressure frack jobs or, much more 

commonly, high-volume wastewater disposal wells, earthquake activity and shale regions can be deeply alarming to members of the 

public. 

In fact, just this week, the Oklahoma Geological Survey released 

a statement concluding that it’s very likely that most of the recent 

earthquakes in the central part of the State—and there have been 

hundreds of those earthquakes—were triggered by the injection of 

produced water into disposal wells. 

Infrastructure: The impact on roads, water systems, schools, social services, land, and neighborhoods of intensive oil and gas development is a leading concern of the many communities across 

America that find themselves, often for the first time, in the center 

of new energy development. 

In States like Texas and Oklahoma, hundreds of cities have 

adopted local rules that have enabled the orderly development of 

oil and gas. Unfortunately, such measures are under attack in 

many jurisdictions, including most recently in Texas where the legislature is considering a bill that would sweep away nearly all local 

authority. We think that would be an unfortunate overreaction. 

Dismantling local regulatory authority increase risks by creating 

regulatory gaps. It also stops communities from imposing even the 

most reasonable rules governing issues such as well setbacks from 

homes, schools, churches, and parks. The result can be even more 

determined citizen opposition to oil and gas operations. 

In many states, new regulatory measures have not kept pace 

with the intense rate of new oil and gas development, which of 

course is made possible by hydraulic fracturing and other new technologies. Local communities have become increasingly restive about 

shale and oil and gas development within their borders. And of 

course, as I note in my written testimony, many communities and 

states have very little and in some cases no experience with the oil 

and gas operations. 

So while drilling bans may not be the solution in the long run, 

they surely do reflect a need for governments at the federal, state, 

and local level to take more aggressive action to protect the environment and the economy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts about the 

basis for these public concerns. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holstein follows:] 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Holstein, and I’ll recognize myself for questions. And let me address my first one to Chairman 

Craddick. 

And it is this: Chairman Craddick, you mentioned in your statement that much of the criticism directed towards fracking is unfounded and inaccurate. And I pointed out in my opening statement that the Administration is now zero for three in their very 

public accusations that somehow fracking contaminates water. 

What is the harm caused by this kind of misinformation and what 

can we do about it? 

Ms. CRADDICK. Well, I think first and foremost—and I appreciate 

the question—there’s a lot of harm caused by misinformation, and 

I think part of the job as a regulator is to make sure that people 

understand we’re out there inspecting and doing our job and that 

we have rules, very vibrant rules in place. 

But when you look at—if you’ve got a fracking ban like we’ve had 

proposed in Texas and we always want to make sure we are respectful of the voters, but I think misinformation in the City of 

Denton is part of what has caused the fracking ban vote there. It’s 

a taking-of-private-property rights, first and foremost. So that’s a 

real challenge. I think all of us respect private property rights and 

citizens to be able to develop their own mineral interests, first and 

foremost. But it’s also an economic problem for Texas. 

So just to give you a little perspective of where Texas is, last 

year—and these are numbers at the end of last year—we—the oil 

and gas industry put into the Texas economy $15.7 billion into the 

Texas economy. That’s both property tax, all kinds of taxes, but 

also payments to those royalty and mineral interest owners. The 

industry created, both the direct and indirect, 2.2 million jobs in 

the State of Texas. And if we decide to ban fracking and/or limit 

what we’re going to do, then I think that you’ll see those jobs go 

away and not come back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you for that response. 

And, Dr. Siegel, you mentioned the two studies, 2011 and 2012, 

that were cited by New York to justify their banning of fracking. 

Your own study refuted their findings, and you mentioned several 

times the bias involved in those studies and in the coverage of 

those studies. What accounts for the bias? What drives the bias? 

What’s the motive and what can be done about that? 

Dr. SIEGEL. That’s a good question. I can’t—— 

Chairman SMITH. Turn on your mike there. Okay. 

Dr. SIEGEL. That’s an excellent question, Mr. Chairman. You 

know, I can’t read into the minds of the researchers, you know, at 

Duke of why they designed the study the way they did. But as I 

said in my testimony, it struck me when I first saw the paper, the 

first one in 2011, that the sampling appeared to be done in a way 

to highlight places where a few fugitive gas well problems had occurred in Pennsylvania, and some have occurred, a few handful 

have occurred, and Dimock being one of them. 

And so it struck me if their goal was to come up with an assessment of in general systematically or systemically is there a problem 

with gas wells and gas and domestic water, they should have sampled differently. 
99 

Why in New York it got such impact I think it had to do with 

the media coverage and actually Rob Jackson’s promotion of his 

paper. And so people picked up on that. 

And how to prevent that, I really don’t know. It’s a big issue of 

how science is perceived in the public and how to present the best 

science there is in a way that the public can understand it. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Siegel. 

And, Mr. Lomax, you discovered, no surprise, this network of 

foundations and activists who seem to engage in what we might 

call and what you called advocacy science, which I don’t think is 

science at all. You might take a swing at how do we counter this 

bias that you have discovered, why it is not scientific, and what we 

can do about it. 

Mr. LOMAX. So I’ve mentioned in my testimony that I live in Colorado. I live in Denver, which is a major—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —Colorado. 

Mr. LOMAX. It’s good to see you Congressman Perlmutter. 

I have the great privilege of working alongside and interacting 

with on a daily basis the men and women of the oil and gas industry in Colorado who make the oil and gas industry run—geologists, 

engineers, other technical experts—because the oil and gas business is fundamentally a scientific enterprise. Without the science 

of geology, you don’t know where to get the oil and gas. Without 

the science of engineering, you don’t know how to build a well to 

bring that oil and gas to the surface so we can turn it into the energy and consumer goods that support our way of life. 

If there’s one thing that I could convey from my discussions with 

them is they just want a debate that’s based on facts. 

Chairman SMITH. Yeah. 

Mr. LOMAX. They just want a debate that’s based on facts because, as practitioners of science themselves, they know that the 

facts conclude that the oil and gas industry, while not being perfect, is most certainly safe. 

And so I think that in terms of the undisclosed conflicts and bias 

that you see sometimes in research and in some media platforms 

that claim to be news outlets, that should be more clearly disclosed. 

I’m here at the committee today very clearly an advocate of the 

oil and gas industry. That’s not something I shy away from. It’s 

something I’m very proud of, and I chose to go to work in oil and 

gas after a long and happy career as a reporter, as a journalist. So 

people know where I’m coming from. People can judge for themselves if I’m somebody worth listening to or not. And one of the 

things that I think you may have noticed about my testimony is 

that I was pointing people to things—pointing people to authoritative sources from outside the industry, particularly environmental regulators, so that you don’t have to take my word for it. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lomax. 

The Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, is recognized. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank all the witnesses for being here and simply say 

that I am really seeking information. And I’m reading an article 

here now that was published in the Wall Street Journal this 

week—as a matter of fact, yesterday—and it talked about the Oklahoma Geological Survey released a statement on Tuesday saying it 
100 

is now considered very likely that most of the hundreds of earthquakes in the State’s center in recent years were triggered by the 

injection of produced water in disposal wells. Southern Methodist 

University scientists, being a small university in Dallas, Texas, indicated that 2013 northwest of Fort Worth was also likely caused 

by the wastewater injection. 

Now, I don’t see anything wrong with the findings. What concerns me is the denial of the findings. It would seem to me that 

if these findings continue even with the University of Texas research, are we addressing the findings? That is my major concern. 

Just last weekend there was a major incident just northwest I 

think of Fort Worth near Arlington where a family’s house collapsed and the water was—everyone was told not to drink the 

water. 

I’ve never found anything wrong with research, but my feeling is 

that once we find findings, rather than denying it’s happening, can 

we start to address the issue? And what do we get from denying 

citizens from being so fearful that they don’t want to see that near 

their homes? 

I’d like to see—Mr. Lomax and Mr. Siegel, would you address 

that for me? What is the—I’m trying to get to why we’re trying to 

deny this is going on. I just want the information so we cannot just 

focus on it’s not happening but focusing on what can we do about 

it. 

Dr. SIEGEL. Well, I mean I’m not denying—I never would deny 

that the injection of water in injection wells at extremely high 

rates wouldn’t potentially cause earthquakes. I mean, I’ve seen the 

studies the USGS has done and there are a number—not many, 

but a few high-capacity injection wells in which produced waters 

are being injected, and Ohio is another place, and so forth. You 

know, the remedy to that is to inject probably at much smaller 

rates. You have more wells injecting at lower volumes. So, you 

know, I certainly wouldn’t deny those results. They come from very 

credible sources. 

In terms of allaying the public’s fears, I’m not sure how to do 

that. But in the context of what you just said, I mean I think it’s 

fairly well known now that if you inject too much fluid at a given 

location in certain geologic settings, you could induce some earthquakes. 

Now, having said that, from my reading of the journals of the literature being produced on the earthquakes in Oklahoma and elsewhere, most of them are the kind you can’t feel but there are some 

that you can feel. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I have felt them. 

Dr. SIEGEL. Right. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I felt them the week before last in Dallas. 

Dr. SIEGEL. Right. So you can’t deny that, right, and I won’t— 

would never deny that. But the solution to that, although I’m not— 

this is not my area of great expertise, but my understanding is that 

you have more injection wells spread out over a larger area and 

you wouldn’t have the kind of problem, at least that’s what—the 

sense I get from my colleagues who study this kind of thing. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Mr. Lomax, do you have a comment? 
101 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for your question. 

My issue is almost never with the actual research but the way 

that those findings get politicized and misrepresented and used by 

groups to say that hydraulic fracturing particularly—even though 

we’re talking about a completely separate process, wastewater injection—when they use that as somehow to build a case for banning fracking. 

On the issue of induced seismicity, I always go back to some testimony that was presented to the United States Senate a couple of 

years ago by one of the Nation’s leading geophysicists, Stanford 

University Geophysicist Mark Zoback, who studies this issue very 

closely, is an advisor to the Obama Administration on this issue, 

and didn’t say it’s a nonissue, just wanted to put it in perspective. 

So, for instance, he said that there are more than 140,000 of these 

wastewater disposal wells that are used by the oil and gas industry 

but also other industries, too, and that those—the vast, vast majority of those have been operating safely for decades. 

So it’s the context and it’s the lack of a factual discussion of the 

research that I take issue with and that I hear about all the time 

from, you know, geologists and engineers inside the oil and gas industry who just want the debate focused on the facts rather than 

it being politicized and sensationalized in an effort to run a media 

campaign to ban fracking. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Now, Ms. Craddick—you went over; I’m going over. 

Chairman SMITH. But you went over more than I did. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. One more question. 

Chairman SMITH. The Ranking Member will—without objection 

will be recognized for another minute. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

We are aware that some of these incidents happen. My concern 

is when people get concerned, it’s real to them. Is the answer to 

just keep them from expressing it by keeping them from having 

local ordinances or do we make some type of recommendation to 

move out of these urban areas where it’s happening to perhaps 

some other area? No matter what, we can sit here and say, this 

frightens people. 

I was standing in my office, which is almost downtown Dallas, 

and the building shook a week ago. And I said I’m on the sixth 

floor. That could not be a car. And then the news came on and said 

it was an earthquake. We are not accustomed to earthquakes in 

that area, but now we are. I mean they’re happening very frequently, Irving, Denton, Fort Worth, and all in the mid-cities area. 

Is it stupid to say people don’t want that to happen near their 

homes? Because for me to say—you’re not going to pass an ordinance in this State to stop this. Do we have a fund to pay these 

people when their homes get torn up and their health is affected? 

Ms. CRADDICK. Well, thank you for the question. I think at the 

Railroad Commission we obviously take seismicity very, very seriously. We last year in April hired a seismologist the first time ever 

in the history that we have ever done that because we are, like everybody else, looking for answers. I’m not sure it’s always oil and 

gas-related when you look at Irving. 
102 

However, we are—have been out inspecting on a regular basis. 

We have rules to be followed, and based on recommendations from 

our seismologist last August, we adjusted some rules for saltwater 

disposal wells and are following those rules because we think— 

we’re trying to be respectful and responsive. However, we’re still 

looking at the science and data like everybody else, and we think 

our rules and our information have to be based on good science and 

good information. 

And so—but we also at the same time as a Commission have 

been up and down town hall meetings in Irving and Azle, been responsive to Denton. And so we want to be involved with the communities so they understand what we do and that we have very 

stringent rules. 

When you mentioned Arlington, last week with a potential well 

that had some problems, we were on scene once we got the call 

within an hour and were on scene for 24 hours straight as an agency and are continuing to follow up with that well to make sure our 

rules are being followed. So we take being a regulator and an inspector—and if a rule is not followed, then we have a stringent enforcement process as well. 

So I think part of our challenge is to communicate those—that 

information to local communities and local residences, and we are 

as we speak trying to up our communication efforts and we do 

work in—with cities and we want to continue to do that as well. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. One more question and I’m done. 

When people’s homes collapse and when they have that kind of 

incident, what responsibility do the companies that are doing the 

drilling have? 

Ms. CRADDICK. It obviously—if that—if it’s proven that—they 

have the right to file a lawsuit. We also—obviously if a well has 

a problem and a rule has been broken, then we also do enforcement 

penalties at our agency as well. So they have the ability to file a 

lawsuit if that’s the appropriate remedy for them. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just state very emphatically that I don’t know anyone on 

our side of the aisle that doesn’t believe that that states and local 

communities have a right to make determinations as to what will 

be permitted to operate within their own borders. We in fact pride 

ourselves in believing in local controls, et cetera. Let me—however, 

with that said, I’d like to ask Mr. Holstein, you mentioned hundreds of earthquakes. You know, when people talk about earthquakes, we—those of us in California, we know what earthquakes 

are, and it’s a very frightening thing to hear about hundreds of 

earthquakes. Just—what was the dollar damage done by all these 

earthquakes in Oklahoma? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You don’t know. 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. No. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. You mentioned hundreds of earthquakes; to us that’s frightening. I think that that—my guess is— 

anyone else on the panel have any idea what the dollar damage 
103 

was done or is this just, that’s an earthquake? There’s some movement there? Do we know what the dollar damage? I would ask the 

panel to get back to me with that information because my guess 

is is that it’s not very much. My guess is is that it’s like a big truck 

driving by and that shake is called an earthquake. Do you consider—Mr. Holstein, does your organization consider any seismic 

activity as an earthquake? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Congressman, let me emphasize that, as Chairman Craddick noted, many of the states that have in place experienced regulators are scurrying to answer some of the questions 

you’re raising. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. But their first order of business I think as regulators of the industry is to discover just scientifically what is the 

connection between the earthquakes and any possible—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, how about answering—— 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. —activity. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —that question? Does your organization consider any seismic activity as an earthquake? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. No. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. They don’t. So what is your definition 

of an earthquake that gives us hundreds of earthquakes in Oklahoma? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Congressman, we—in my testimony the cite of 

a—the references I made to the earthquakes came from the report 

that the Oklahoma Geological Survey has issued in the last few 

days. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And they—— 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. So we didn’t—let me just say we did not—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. —do any independent investigation. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Secondly, I want to endorse your suggestion that 

we gather information about the cost of whatever earthquakes 

may—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, certainly, because—— 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. —have occurred because I think the insurance industry is probably a good source for that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Let me note that I am a former journalist as well. I remember a story that I covered years ago when 

there was a—we’d had an offshore oil well disaster or—it doesn’t 

exist anymore. The water is back to its normal state in California 

after that. I think it was 1969 there was a big oil spill out there. 

And, anyway, the oil companies had decided they were going to pay 

for major research into the danger of offshore oil wells. And I was 

called in as a reporter to cover one of these hearings that they were 

having, and you had these guys with Ph.D.’s and they really—talk 

about professionals that were hired on to try to give the public 

some answers about the actual dangers of offshore oil drilling. 

Well, when I got to this hearing, there was a young lady outside 

with a rubber duck covered with oil screaming ‘‘murderers, murderers’’ as they went by. And that young lady with the rubber duck 

got all the press coverage that day. She was actually put on par. 

And I asked her as we left, I said, well, are you a student here lo-
104 

cally? Well, she said, no, I’m just hitchhiking through town. And 

I said, well, how did you get over here? She said, well, this guy who 

picked me up said that he would put me up if I would hold up this 

rubber duck and scream ‘‘murderer’’ at these people, and I don’t 

like these oil companies anyway. 

You know, we’ve got to get serious about these issues, environmental issues, and there’s a lot of people who are holding up a rubber duck with oil dripping from it screaming ‘‘murderer’’ and then 

what we end up with is less safe energy. What we end up with and 

what we end up in California with was—and other places where 

they banned now offshore oil drilling for so long, and we ended up 

with oil being delivered by tanker, which is probably 10 times more 

dangerous than anything coming from an offshore oil well. We have 

people who have opposed the pipeline that we—the Keystone pipeline for environmental reasons and that we end up with even more 

danger transporting that same oil and gas by trains. 

So, look, I think everybody—and nobody in their—who is in their 

right mind is going to make—want there to be more danger environmentally, things that can hurt—we all have children. We want 

our children to inherit a planet that’s cleaner. But what we have 

is people who are acting irrationally and I believe it’s all based on 

some messianic theory that we’ve got to eliminate oil and gas because we are changing the climate of the planet; thus anything we 

do is justified. And I think we need to be very careful with our 

facts, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this hearing. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to our witnesses for being here today for this important discussion. 

I wanted to take just a minute to recognize Camille, who is here 

with Girls Inc. as my daughter for the day. She’s from Oregon and 

she’s in the fourth grade and she has a class in science and a class 

in technology at her school. So when we talk about science literacy, 

I want to tell you there’s hope for the next generation. 

So back home in Oregon, my constituents reside along or near an 

active fault, the Cascadia Subduction Zone, so for this reason Oregonians are very concerned about seismic issues, and as they 

should be. Currently, I know the Oregon Legislature is studying 

hydraulic fracturing. We have none in our State at present. And, 

as Mr. Holstein testified both in his oral testimony and his written 

testimony, he was talking about the Oklahoma geological survey. 

I would like to—if—has this already been entered, the Geological 

Survey? I would like to ask that this be made a part of the record 

today, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. BONAMICI. The statement dated April 21, 2015, where 

they’re talking about how the seismicity rate has increased and 

that it is—and I’m just going to read this so I get it right—‘‘very 

likely that the majority of recent earthquakes, particularly those in 

central and north-central Oklahoma, are triggered by the injection 

of produced water in disposal wells.’’ 
105 

So I know that the water being injected in Oklahoma’s deep 

wells comes from two main sources, the wastewater that originated 

from the water that was used to frack the wells and produced 

water that comes up along with the oil and gas, so we do have that 

now in the record and I hope everyone will take a look at it. 

Mr. Holstein, you talked about hydraulic fracturing. You mentioned heavy industrial activity. And my colleagues are talking 

about the right of states to properly regulate that type of activity. 

And I know we have a colleague here from New York. There has 

been a lot of conversation about what they’ve done in New York, 

and I know Vermont has also imposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Holstein, in addition to the seismic issues 

which were raised with regard to Oklahoma that my constituents 

are especially concerned about, what other environmental concerns 

are associated with the disposal of fracturing—excuse me, fracking 

wastewater and produced water? 

And I also wanted you to just address a little bit more the use 

of water. You say—you mentioned that in your testimony, and I 

know that Texas alone has used more than 44 billion gallons of 

water in fracking activities. I don’t have the time frame on that but 

could you talk a little bit about just the amount of water? I know 

in parts of Oregon we’re very concerned about drought, California, 

and we look across a lot of the country that’s facing drought. Do 

you have a sense of the volume of water that’s used? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Yes, certainly, Congresswoman. And I think 

you’re right to put your finger on the issue that so many communities are worried about and states, particularly those states that 

are suffering through terrible droughts right now, which is that 

these unconventional oil and gas drilling operations frequently require very large amounts of water, 1 to 5 million gallons per well, 

so that’s dozens if not sometimes hundreds of trucks rumbling up 

and down local roads. Okay. That’s one of the reasons why we 

argue that this is a heavy industrial activity. 

But the broader context in which you’re putting the water issue 

is exactly right. It’s the availability of water, it’s the challenge of 

treating water, it’s the challenge of injecting water, and the issues 

which you have just discussed with respect to earthquakes and of 

course protection of water supplies, and all of these issues kind of 

revolve around the fact that there are enormous quantities of 

water. 

How much? In my testimony I indicate that there’s approximately 800 billion gallons of water that must be managed or disposed of in the course of a year’s worth of unconventional oil and 

gas development. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And I don’t want to interrupt you, Mr. Holstein, 

but I would like you to address in the remaining time the studies 

looking at the release of methane during hydraulic—— 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Certainly. 

Ms. BONAMICI. —fracturing, please, and why that’s significant. 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Yes. We have done a lot of work in that area 

jointly with industry, as well as academic partners and others in 

peer-reviewed studies that have—that are taking a look at the 

methane issue across the entire natural gas supply chain. And as 
106 

you know, natural gas is 97 percent or so methane, so emissions 

from anywhere in the supply chain are harmful to the climate but 

they also,—bring—you know, come along with volatile organic compounds that are a hazard. 

To answer your question directly, the release of methane from 

unconventional oil and gas wells is a problem but it’s a solvable 

problem provided that operators use techniques that are available 

to them and equipment that is available to them, because if you 

look at the whole supply chain of where natural gas or methane 

leaks from, what you find is that as much as 40 percent of those 

methane emissions will come from the production segment. We’re 

working, as I said, with these partners to get a better handle on 

exactly that figure. 

But I think the important point that has come up through these 

scientifically peer-reviewed studies is that the design of the wells 

and the techniques used by the operators can make a huge difference in the amount of methane that escapes, and so this is a 

concern for local communities, as I said, because of local air pollution, and for the Nation as a whole because of its contribution to 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

I’d finally say that methane is a nasty climate actor. It’s 84 times 

as powerful as carbon dioxide in the first 20 years or so after it’s 

released. And the significance of that point—and I believe attached 

to my testimony and in the record you’ll find a scientific article 

about this problem. But the significance of that is that it creates 

a near-term problem with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, in 

other words, damage to the climate, and that together with CO2 it’s 

kind of a one-two punch at the climate. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. I see my time is expired. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this hearing. I have a lot of concern about fracking and seismic 

testing, and we get so much diverse information disseminated. You 

know, today we have three people saying positive things and one 

person saying negative things, and it’s hard to tell, you know, who 

all is telling the truth and who might not be telling the whole truth 

and nothing but the truth. 

And, Mr. Holstein, in your written testimony you made things a 

little bit different than your oral testimony, and I think I heard you 

say in your oral testimony that, true, there is no evidence fracking 

causes contamination or maybe fracking—would you repeat that for 

me, please? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Yes, sir. And it’s—hopefully I said the same thing 

in my oral summary as I did in the written, but if I didn’t, I welcome the opportunity to repeat it here. ‘‘There is yet to be conclusive evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself has caused drinking 

water contamination. However, it is widely understood that poor 

well construction and maintenance can create pathways for contamination’’—— 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. That—— 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. —‘‘of groundwater.’’ 

Mr. POSEY. That’s what I wanted to hear. Thank you. 
107 

You know, I heard people say the same thing about the Alamo. 

You know, it’s true that the Alamo does not itself cause any contamination, but all those people that go to visit it, they probably 

travel there by car or something and they probably caused some 

kind of pollution. Somebody else said the same thing about the 

Super Bowl. The Super Bowl itself doesn’t cause any pollution, but 

people that go to see the Super Bowl turn on television to watch 

the Super Bowl, that consumes energy. 

People said the same thing about the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty itself doesn’t cause pollution, the people that take a 

boat to it, the boat causes pollution taking them there and the energy for the boat has to be produced. Somebody said the same thing 

about the White House. The White House itself does not cause any 

environmental damage but people who go to see the White House 

have to travel there and we know that virtually just about every 

product that we enjoy consumes some type of energy in the making 

of it. 

How do those examples differ from the point you’re making? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Congressman, I think it’s important for me to 

point out that Environmental Defense Fund has not been reflexively opposed to unconventional oil and gas development or the 

widespread development of these new resources that previously 

were economically unavailable to America. 

So I’d begin with that point and simply summarize the thrust of 

my testimony by saying that it is too narrow of focus simply to look 

at one dimension of hydraulic fracturing. That’s why my testimony 

addresses the many issues that come along with unconventional 

drilling, but at the same time, it points out in considerable detail 

the actions that have been taken in states like Texas, in states like 

Colorado, in states like Pennsylvania and Wyoming to try to address these concerns. 

And one of the things I believe Chairman Craddick has said that 

we so strongly support—in fact, I was thinking about it as Congressman Rohrabacher was speaking with respect to offshore drilling—and that is that one of the essential challenges for regulators 

is to simply keep up with the enormous amount of innovation that’s 

going on in the oil and gas industry. And I make no complaint 

about that innovation. I simply noted that it is a highly complex 

and heavy industrial activity and regulators need to be on their 

toes. 

So let me conclude my response to you by saying that if you can 

imagine the many communities and states where suddenly oil and 

gas development is occurring where no one alive has ever seen it 

before, has ever experienced it before, has ever worked in the industry before, you can imagine the challenges to elected officials at 

the state and local levels in trying to devise appropriate regulatory 

programs and oversight. 

And that is why we have such differences from state to state 

with states like Texas having 100 years or more of aggressive and 

increasingly complex regulation of the industry but other states 

that are just starting out. And similarly, we have a tremendous difference in the reactions that you see between—the reactions you 

see politically to some of the local fights over banning. Very briefly—— 
108 

Mr. POSEY. Yeah, I see my time is going to be up. I want to 

thank you. I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing today. 

My particular interest is in offshore drilling that you mentioned, 

and it’s through hearings like this that the Chairman was kind 

enough to have that we share those ideas and we learn from different states and learn different techniques and do more fact-finding on these issues that maybe aren’t 100 percent clear. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the time and I yield 

back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

The only member of the Science Committee from Colorado, Mr. 

Perlmutter, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank my friend from Florida because what he’s brought up, you 

know, he’s given examples, the White House, the Super Bowl, and 

the whatevers. I think he and I both serve on the banking committee, the Financial Services Committee, and so one of the places 

where we may see an intersection at some point is with insurance, 

you know, property and casualty insurance if in fact there are dangers that some people have suggested. So we will see this come up 

in our other committee I’d say to my friend from Florida. 

Now, Colorado, obviously we’ve had a lot of discussion about 

fracking and about its place in the politic—in the body politic and 

legal community and the regulatory area. And so I’ve been dealing 

with this subject for ten years now I would say as a policymaker. 

And for me the fact that we have moved ourselves towards energy 

independence as a policy and as a successful goal from the innovation of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking is good, but—and 

I think Ms. Craddick, you said it well—we have to take reasonable 

precautions, though, with something that has helped us achieve another goal, and we’ve got to—as policymakers, we have to balance 

the dangers that potentially come from an industrial operation, as 

Mr. Holstein described it. 

And the fact that some things are going on underground we may 

or may not be able to see, some things are happening at the surface 

where there’s a collision of an industrial operation and the school 

next door and whether you need a curb cut for the trucks and 

what’s going on in the air. Is there an escape of methane or some 

other emission into the air? And Mr. Lomax knows we’ve been having that discussion in Colorado on a pretty, you know, heated basis, 

whether it should be local government, the state governments, or 

the Federal Government in charge of all of this. 

Colorado is similar to Texas. It’s the state government basically 

has the final say, our Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, and that’s 

generally where I’ve been. But we cannot ignore the potential for 

dangers. We as policymakers have to recognize dangers, and I’m 

looking at Oklahoma. There was an article yesterday where the 

Oklahoma Geological Survey said we’re worried about seismic problems. So, you know, they said—and they attribute it to the deep 

wastewater injection wells, and in Colorado we’ve had, you know, 

some seismic activity that ordinarily is not something we have in 

Colorado. You know, we want that to be only in Oregon and people 

come to Colorado because they’re worried about Oregon, you know? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thanks. 
109 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Sorry. 

So I would say—I’d like to ask a question of Mr. Holstein. Good 

to see you. 

So take a look in what you do at EDF, what you did formerly 

within the Administration. Am I incorrect in trying to divide it up 

into three sections, what goes on underground, what goes on on the 

surface, and what goes on in the air? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Fair enough. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. So what I’ve come to the conclusion is the surface part really is a local matter. It’s zoning and curb cuts and 

truck traffic. Does that make sense to you? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. I think my testimony strongly suggests a similar 

line of thinking. I hadn’t divided it up quite the same way that it 

makes sense, yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I’d ask Mr. Siegel, and my—would you—I 

mean how do you look at how we divide sort of the regulatory components of all of this? 

Dr. SIEGEL. Well, it’s hard for me to really reply to that because 

I’m not a regulator, okay, and I’ve really pretty much restricted my 

views to what I know and feel pretty comfortable with, which is 

water. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. So you’re a scientist and you’re dealing with 

water and what’s going on underground, right? 

Dr. SIEGEL. That’s correct, and on the surface at times, yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And on the surface, okay. 

Dr. SIEGEL. Yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. So from your experience and from your study, 

though, the pollution or the contamination you’ve seen really has 

been with poor casing, some poor practices with respect to the well? 

Dr. SIEGEL. Well, not quite. I mean in my experience, which is 

largely restricted to the Appalachia Basin of course since I’m from 

New York, the kinds of problems that the Pennsylvania experience 

tells us happens are there occasional surface spills certainly in the 

past before the industry took notice, and now that amount of spillage has really decreased. 

And as far as the casings, you know, a few instances, a few handful of instances—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Well, isn’t that—would that be the problem in 

Dimock? 

Dr. SIEGEL. Dimock was a casing issue or—well, there’s some 

question about that, whether when they drilled they went—there’s 

some issues of drilling. But it could also have been casing as well. 

And that was natural gas from somewhere below coming into people’s homes. 

As far as the other fluids associated with the industry, it’s mostly 

surface issues that are the problem, and those are readily taken 

care of in most cases. I mean we don’t have open pits, for example, 

in Appalachia anymore. And in terms of the flow backwater, the 

produced water, in Appalachia Basin, it’s my understanding that 

most of the flow back is reused to drill new wells. And so the quantity of flow back and produced water has gotten really small. They 

actually have to take care of—ship it to Ohio or something for deep 

well injection, but because the industry has to develop ways to do 

this. 
110 

In Pennsylvania there was a remarkable situation where one of 

the companies—and I forget which one—suggested—they developed 

a way to use acid mine drainage coming out of coal mines as a fraction water additive instead of using freshwater, but there was a 

state regulation for some reason saying you can’t get economic advantage out of using a waste product or something so they never 

actually did it. But the point is that the chemical engineers are at 

work to try to solve the issue so that maybe in the future we don’t 

have to use freshwater but bad water to do the actual fracking. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Lomax, my time is expired. I did want to ask the Coloradan a question but my time has expired. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 

for an additional minute. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Oh, all right. 

So, you know what, I’m going to—I’m done. I’ll let—I’ll talk to 

Mr. Lomax offline. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. LOMAX. Congressman, I would like to, if I could, add a little 

context to the local and state issues about regulation—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Sure. 

Mr. LOMAX. —in Colorado. I think what you’ve seen in Colorado 

is that on the whole, you know, in the majority of cases, you see 

the oil and gas industry working constructively with both state and 

local governments in order to—and even supporting local regulations in order to make sure that the development is done responsibly and is done with the support of the community. There have 

been, as you know, some cases where there have been local bans 

enacted and there has been very sort of broad regulatory and bipartisan opposition to local bans. But in terms of local regulation, 

there is a lot of really sort of constructive work going on between 

the state, between the industry, and between local governments. 

Now, that kind of stuff doesn’t generate a lot of headlines because there isn’t a lot of conflict associated with it. But during this 

whole oil and gas task force that the Governor set up last year, you 

had the Colorado Municipal League and you had the Colorado Association of Counties say we can work through these issues using 

the existing regulatory framework rather than turning—rather 

than coming up with statewide policies that are basically being proposed by national ban fracking groups. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Holstein has been a—he wanted to say 

something so—— 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Thank you because I just am going to crystallize 

an important point that Mr. Lomax is making here. We believe 

that the set of rules that the State of Colorado has put into effect 

in the last year are among the most progressive and comprehensive 

in the Nation in terms of the range of issues they develop. And we 

were delighted to partner with the three largest oil and gas developers in the State and coming together to develop the consensus 

that led to that comprehensive new set of rules. 

But the driver for that conversation, what brought everyone to 

the table, was the fact that Colorado communities one by one were 

adopting or considering bans, putting them on the ballot, and there 
111 

were indeed headlines across the state about whether or not oil and 

gas development, particularly involving unconventional development, including hydraulic fracturing, would be permitted in the 

state. 

So I simply point out that this is the danger of ignoring the local 

concerns that can sometimes lead to these bans. You need to bring 

people together and you need to take aggressive action to address 

the issues. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. And I’m going to be drummed 

out—off of this committee if I take any more time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. 

The gentleman from Ohio, is recognized, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I live in a very rich—shale-rich region of eastern and southeastern Ohio, and hydraulic fracturing has been a process that has 

had profound economic—positive economic implications to the people that live in Appalachia, Ohio. So I’m very concerned about some 

of the issues that we’re talking about here today. 

And, Chairman Craddick, there’s been a lot of discussion about 

earthquakes here this morning. Is there some confusion that the 

earthquakes are being caused by hydraulic fracturing when it’s 

really the deep well injection of the waste? Would you take a 

minute and comment on that? 

Ms. CRADDICK. First and foremost, thank you for the question 

and I will say your governor and some of your legislators and regulators have been to the Railroad Commission so we can explain 

what we’re doing. So hopefully we continue to give you good advice 

as you are putting a vibrant oil and gas community together up 

there as well. 

You know, we obviously all take seismicity very seriously, and 

the information available today is that hydraulic fracturing is not 

causing earthquakes. That’s the information available in Texas 

today. We are still researching and looking at the available science 

and we just had an SMU study, out on Monday night, Tuesday this 

week that our seismologist is going through and working with 

them. We hope they present this study to us in the near future so 

we can ask our appropriate questions as both regulators—I know 

the legislature is in session right now in Texas. They want to ask 

questions as well. So we’re still looking at deep water injection 

wells and whether that is the potential challenge in Texas. 

So the answer is I don’t think anybody absolutely knows. What 

I do think some of these studies potentially do is rule out potential 

problems that could be caused by earthquakes. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. But let me clarify just for the record, 

you’re saying there’s no evidence yet at this point that would indicate that hydraulic fracturing is causing earthquakes? 

Ms. CRADDICK. That’s the information we have available, yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. CRADDICK. And what I think some of these studies do do is 

rule out issues but I’m not sure they can ever tell you specifically 

what is specifically causing it, too. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Got it. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. Siegel, many advocacy groups have claimed that the methane 

found in drinking water of various homes was caused by hydraulic 
112 

fracturing. Now, if methane is naturally occurring, how can you tell 

if it’s naturally occurring or as a result of oil and gas development? 

Dr. SIEGEL. Well, I’ve always thought it was fairly simple. If you 

have fugitive gas from a gas well, my understanding, if it gets out 

and gets into a domestic water supply, what you’ll find is methane 

Alka-Seltzer being produced where it was not there before. 

Now, there are some places in Pennsylvania and in New York 

where we have naturally methane Alka-Seltzer occasionally coming 

out of some drinking water wells where there’s no drilling at all, 

and this is a unique geologic situation. But it’s—you don’t—the 

State of Pennsylvania doesn’t to my knowledge identify fugitive gas 

by analyzing and seeing that dissolved concentrations that you 

can’t see get higher. I mean basically homeowners say my well is 

bubbling gas and hasn’t bubbled before and there’s a gas well nearby. So there are very few cases I know there have been fugitive 

gas, and most of which have been easily taking care of by re-cementing. 

It’s very apparent, all right, and so that’s what concerned me 

about the other—those previous studies, that they—looking at dissolved methane, the stuff you can’t see, and saying that increases 

in these which vary enormously over time naturally are somehow 

related to oil and gas, and that’s what we found was the case. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Sure. One follow-on question, you know, 

although it makes for good cinema and anti-fracking advocacy, is 

natural gas in drinking water a new phenomenon? 

Dr. SIEGEL. Well, not to my knowledge. The very first time I 

came to Syracuse in 1981, the first call I got was from a citizen 

who heard there was a hydrologist there and it had to do with natural gas in their water well. It was near Saratoga, New York, 

where I grew up, and, you know, I asked a few questions, and that 

particular natural gas came from a wetland setting. 

The U.S. Geological Survey in New York has—did a study on 

natural gas and found every well had some natural gas. At Syracuse, some funded by National Science Foundation to look at natural gas in Southern Tier, New York, and pretty much every place 

we’ve looked for it or looked there’s been natural gas, and certainly 

in Pennsylvania the same way. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. Well, thank you, Dr. Siegel. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m going to be respectful of my colleagues’ time 

and our witnesses’ time and yield back within my prescribed time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

And the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I’d like to thank all 

the witnesses, too, for being here with us today. 

Dr. Siegel, you expressed some concern about the Duke professor 

studies and the bias in their sample collection, the 146, two of 

them—or some of them near two of the wells that had failed. 

Dr. SIEGEL. Um-hum. 

Mr. BEYER. And yet when you gathered your 12,000 or whatever 

you were working on, they were gathered by employees of the 

Chesapeake, a natural gas explorer. Why is that inherent bias not 

much greater than independent researchers working for a university? 
113 

Dr. SIEGEL. Well, I think you mischaracterized what happened 

with the Chesapeake. Chesapeake Gas, to my knowledge—what I 

was told it—is they hired national consultants who sampled for 

them and nationally recognized certified labs by EPA and so forth 

to do the analyses. So Chesapeake didn’t sample themselves. They 

hired independent contractors who are hired all over the country 

in environmental work to do the sampling. And so I don’t see that 

those samples could have been compromised or would have been 

compromised by the fact that the Chesapeake hired independent 

consultants to do the sampling, much like, you know, I hired a laboratory to do analyses for me. 

Mr. BEYER. Doctor, you also expressed, you know, some concern 

about I guess maybe blogs or others that were critical of the failure 

to disclose your connection to Chesapeake in the original peer review. I know you corrected it last week, but the original said the 

authors declared no competing financial interest even though the 

samples were paid for to be collected by Chesapeake, you were 

funded by Chesapeake, and one of the co-authors was an employee 

of Chesapeake. Can you explain this oversight? Now corrected. 

Dr. SIEGEL. Well, you know, I don’t think it was an oversight in 

the sense that the editors and everyone else in the journal fully understood by the bylines under our names that it would be obvious 

that we were being paid by Chesapeake. Chesapeake or any of 

these large corporations is not going to just hand over 34,000 analyses and say just do with them what you want. It was a collaborative agreement. 

And so my colleagues across the country, when they started seeing these blogs about me, you know, they said, well, of course you 

must have been paid by Chesapeake. 

But I guess it’s an oversight in the context that people brought 

it up and so we took care of it. And as editor, you know, I—as I 

said, I’ve edited, I don’t know, five, six journals in my career and 

I’ve seen lots of cases like this. So, yeah, I mean it’s a corporate 

connection. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. All right. Thanks very much. 

Dr. SIEGEL. Yeah. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Lomax, you again expressed great concern about 

so-called advocacy science. And, you know, so much of this is one 

side not trusting the science of the other. Why is it advocacy 

science when citizens worry about what’s happening in their community to their health possibly but it’s not advocacy science when 

the oil and gas industry hires scientists and journalists and others 

to represent their perspective? 

Mr. LOMAX. I’m sorry, so the question is—— 

Mr. BEYER. What makes Mr. Holstein’s science advocacy science 

and yours not? 

Mr. LOMAX. Well, let me start by saying that, you know, my— 

the white paper that we released today on the New York fracking 

ban is primarily about a failure to disclose all the interests that are 

being brought to the table and the funding thereof. And so, you 

know, I think that as a representative of the oil and gas industry 

and as an advocate for the oil and gas industry, you know where 

I’m coming from. And what we found when we looked at some of 

these research papers, particularly the research paper that was 
114 

both written and peer-reviewed by opponents of the industry, that 

opposition to the industry wasn’t disclosed so that people weren’t 

able to judge for themselves whether that information was trustworthy or not. 

So it was an issue of disclosure rather than—it’s not a question 

of whether or not people can advocate for a political viewpoint that 

they believe in. Of course they can. But if they’re going to try to 

represent themselves as then, you know, independent researchers 

when they’re actually running campaigns to try to ban hydraulic 

fracturing in New York, that’s something at the very least needs 

to be disclosed. And you don’t have to take my word for it. There 

are plenty of scientific codes of conduct that say these sorts of conflicts at the very least need to be disclosed. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Craddick, how does geology impact the process of 

fracking, the composition of the formations that you’re fracking? 

Ms. CRADDICK. Obviously that’s one of the things we, one, rely 

on operators to look at; but if there is a fault and that fault is a 

known fault, then we make sure that that—that we’re not allowing 

drilling to occur in that fault, first and foremost. We take that into 

account, as do companies. That’s part of their risk assessment as 

well. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. In that regard isn’t it true that the geology of Texas, the history of it is is that there has been more than 

100 earthquakes large enough to be felt over the recent past? How 

many of those—the ones in the 1800s, the early 1900s. I’ve got a 

whole list of Texas earthquakes that occurred before fracking. Why 

do you think that happened? 

Ms. CRADDICK. You’ve done your research obviously. You know, 

we had a question earlier about Irving. When you look at the history of Irving, it actually is an earthquake capital of Texas that 

really—we don’t have really any oil and gas going on in it. So I 

think it’s a fair suggestion to think there are other things besides 

just oil and gas causing earthquakes at this point. 

Mr. PALMER. How about Oklahoma? There’s been a long history 

of earthquakes in Oklahoma I know. It may not be a fair question 

for you since you’re not from Oklahoma, but isn’t that true as well, 

that there have been a number over the last 100 years of earthquakes in Oklahoma that probably were not attributable to any 

human activity? 

Ms. CRADDICK. I believe—even though I’m not from Oklahoma, 

we obviously share a border and we pay attention and work with 

their commission as well, and so that would be a fair statement, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. It’s also true of Colorado and it’s a little more difficult because they’ve only, in terms of history, recently been tracking Colorado earthquakes. I think maybe the earliest was 1870, but 

they had a series of earthquakes that occurred in Colorado that 

cost of damage in the early 1900s in Denver. And obviously there’s 

more damages, there’s more building and more settlement and 
115 

more people moving in. You start to notice these things as there’s 

more people. 

I’d also like to say something from a report from the University 

of Texas Institute of Geophysics, the Jackson School of Geosciences. 

It talks about along the Gulf Coast and Northeast Texas these— 

the earthquakes with magnitudes between M4 and M4.8. It says, 

‘‘fortunately, the vast majority of petroleum fields and injection 

wells do not cause earthquakes and the majority of human-cause 

earthquakes are small and harmless.’’ Would you agree with that? 

Ms. CRADDICK. That’s what we’ve seen thus far, yes, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. Also in regard to methane emissions 

since we’re on the topic, the University of Texas, there was a research report done through the University of Texas that was done 

in close coordination with the Environmental Defense Fund. I 

think our—one of our witnesses works for them. And they basically 

found that EPA’s estimates for methane emissions are far lower 

than what anti-fracking groups frequently claim. As a matter of 

fact, I think as the newer technology has been employed, that 

they’re capturing most of these emissions now. What do you—could 

you validate that? 

Ms. CRADDICK. Well, we don’t do air emissions. We do work with 

our sister agency, the TCEQ in Texas, and they are telling us and 

believe that our emissions from methane have dropped about 70 

percent in Texas since 2001. 

Mr. PALMER. So could we possibly conclude from that that as the 

technology has improved that methane capture has improved along 

with it? 

Ms. CRADDICK. I believe that would be a fair conclusion, yes, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. One last thing is it was mentioned that 

this—that states ought to be able to regulate—well, actually it was 

Justice Brandeis was quoted but I believe it was Justice Brandeis 

that referred to the states as laboratories of democracy. I agree 

with that statement and I think that the states have—particularly 

since they have more knowledge of their geological issues than the 

Federal Government does in many respects, that these things 

should be dealt with at the state level. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. And thank you, Mr. Palmer. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And I want to echo sentiments shared earlier by our Ranking 

Member. 

It’s very odd to have a hearing in which we seem to be belittling 

local communities for their decision-making about their own quality of life. I think that kind of freedom is the essence of our democracy. To claim that communities are making these decisions simply 

because of bad information is rather interesting but irrelevant. I 

can point out that bad information on climate change or on the 

costs of the Affordable Care Act, which some refer to as 

ObamaCare, seem to be driving all kinds of voter choices around 

our country, but I don’t think my friends on the other side of the 

aisle are going to work very hard to set those records straight. 

So to my questions, first to Mr. Lomax, in your testimony you 

state that research by Energy In Depth found that many of the re-
116 

search papers cited by the State of New York’s health review of the 

process of hydraulic fracturing were financed by groups that oppose 

fracking. Is that correct? 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TONKO. And you also cite a specific study where the authors 

fail to mention that they have direct ties to opposition groups. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TONKO. So it seems to me that the point you’re trying to 

make is that we should not trust the results of these studies because the work is financed by groups opposed to fracking. That is 

a bit ironic given the fact that the Energy In Depth effort was 

founded by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, 

along with financial support from the American Petroleum Institute, the API, Chevron, Shell, BP, and other oil and gas companies. 

So by your logic we should not trust Energy In Depth either. 

When Energy In Depth was launched by IPAA in June of 2009, 

they sent out a letter announcing its launch. The letter said, 

‘‘EnergyInDepth.org, a state-of-the-art online resource center to 

combat new environmental regulations, especially with regard to 

hydraulic fracturing.’’ 

In a paper by one of your colleagues, Chris Tucker, published 

last year, he described how Energy In Depth helps to combat opponents of hydraulic fracturing. And he wrote, ‘‘The EID teams also 

help generate and guide stories behind the scenes. This year alone 

the number of new stories influenced was in the hundreds.’’ And 

he goes on to say that ‘‘EID regularly engages on social networks 

such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube always with the goal of 

driving the debate.’’ Mr. Lomax, appearing before a congressional 

committee isn’t a very behind-the-scenes way to drive the debate, 

but I appreciate this opportunity to ask how you generate and 

guide stories behind the scenes. With a number of news stories influenced by EID in the hundreds, could you tell us how you carry 

out that influence? 

Mr. LOMAX. Let me deal first with your question about the failure to disclose ties to the campaigns trying to ban fracking in New 

York by researchers who were producing papers cited by the State 

of New York in order to ban fracking. My criticism of that practice 

was the failure to disclose those ties so that this research was— 

and these researchers in effect misrepresented themselves as unbiased observers as opposed to advocates. I am—— 

Mr. TONKO. But to—you know, I only have so much time with 

my questioning—— 

Mr. LOMAX. Right. 

Mr. TONKO. —here. Just to the question, how do you carry out 

your influence? I’d rather hear about that right now. 

Mr. LOMAX. Well, I’m not sure about carrying out my influence. 

I can tell you that I am, as I said before and I’ve been very clear 

about, I am an oil and gas industry advocate. I’m—— 

Mr. TONKO. Right, but you’re involved in several behind-thescenes scenarios, so how do you carry out your influence? What 

publications tend to be the most receptive to story ideas pitched by 

your organization? 
117 

Mr. LOMAX. I see my role both here before the Committee and 

answering questions from anyone who has questions about the way 

oil and gas is produced is to direct them to authoritative sources 

like state regulatory agencies, like Federal regulatory agencies, and 

members of academia who can help answer their questions. That 

basically is the role that I serve and it is very much—and I draw 

upon the skills that I have as a reporter trying to find answers for 

myself. 

Mr. TONKO. Let me also ask, though. Does the press even know 

to contact you? How does it—I mean EID isn’t exactly a household 

name. How does it—is this like orchestrated behind the scenes 

with an effort to obviously provide a bias? I mean researchers who 

observed real occurrences are not biased to reality perhaps? What 

contacts do the press have? How do they know to reach the EID? 

Mr. LOMAX. Well, they first of all could go to our website, 

EnergyInDepth.org. My email address at Energy In Depth is 

Simon@EnergyInDepth.org. I don’t think that there is much about 

Energy In Depth that is hidden or behind the scenes, as you suggest. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, I was only quoting from the individual who’s 

in charge of carrying forth the mission. 

Mr. LOMAX. Okay. My—I see my role, and it’s one that I am very 

proud to hold as an advocate for the oil and gas industry, is to get 

facts in front of people who want to see them. And that’s really as 

far as it goes. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, it’s always it—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. TONKO. I reminded that it was the goal of driving the debate 

that the presentation was done. 

Mr. LOMAX. I think I said in an earlier answer that the people 

that I am privileged to work with in the oil and gas industry, particularly geologists and engineers and other technical experts, they 

want a debate driven by facts, and someone has to put the facts— 

someone has to help disseminate the facts, and energy in depth, 

particularly through its website, makes those facts available. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

all the witnesses who are here today. 

It’s interesting we’re talking about facts and science and true 

science. Just last week, I was subjected to an interview by a member of the media who asked me to make a statement regarding 

global warming and climate change. And as a conservative, as an 

outdoorsman, I made a complete statement, that I think we need 

to look at true science and the facts, that we see the science, but 

at the same time we shouldn’t pollute our land. We should be good 

stewards of the environment. 

Unfortunately, the reporter decided to parse my statement and 

take out all of the parts that did not support the end of which he 

wanted to make his article. And I’m afraid I’m seeing more and 

more of that to where even in some of the scientific communities 

where in the past opinions—scientific opinions were based on true 

science or fact, but today it seems that we’re manipulating the 
118 

facts to support whatever end—political end that we want to come 

up to. 

And so the question goes back to some research from a minority 

staff report on the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee from October of last year. The New York-based Park Foundation asked Professor Howarth to write an academic article that 

would make a case that Shell gas was a dangerous, polluting fuel. 

Later that year, the Foundation paid $135,000 for that study. 

When the study came out, allegations mounted that there was 

data manipulation and unsubstantiated assumptions. In the end, it 

was almost universally condemned by the current Administration 

and others in academia, and later by the Environmental Defense 

Fund. However, environmental activists such as Robert Kennedy, 

Jr., and Bill McKibben of 350.org supported the work as proof that 

hydraulic fracturing was worse than coal. 

Dr. Siegel, how can this type of paper ever make it past the peerreview process? 

Dr. SIEGEL. That’s a very—that’s a good question. I’m glad you 

asked it. I know Bob Howarth quite well. I’ve debated him actually. 

And he’s a very good estuarine ecologist, among other things. 

The problem really in the review process, and I speak as much 

as an editor as a contributor to publications, is that—let me just 

give you very quickly how it happens. A scientist submits a paper 

to a journal and it goes to the chief editor. The chief editor then 

assigns an associate editor to handle the paper. The associate editor then has to find three to five reviewers, peer reviewers, who 

would review it to be nonbiased and so forth, to review the paper. 

Usually the person writing the paper suggests three names and the 

editor or the associate editor can assess whether those names 

would be okay, and then they pick some others from outside. It’s 

not unlike NSF and how they do their work, okay? 

The problem that’s happened is that the publication system is so 

overwhelmed with submittals that a lot of editors simply will take 

whoever is offered as possible reviewers by the author in order to 

actually get the peer review. And that’s what probably happened 

in the papers that we’re referring to with respect to the Health Department ruling in New York. 

In my case, for example, the paper that I submitted just got published, you know, I chose a professor at Penn State, who is clearly 

unbiased, National Academy of Science person. I chose a couple 

people from the United States Geological Survey who I thought 

knew a lot about methane and had done independent work, and I 

purposely did not choose from my reviewers who I recommended 

anyone who I thought would be biased, you know, towards the oil 

and gas industry. And I know who those people are—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Right. 

Dr. SIEGEL. —okay? And so I got the review back and there are 

some really good comments and we modify the paper to address 

certain concerns and out it went. But that kind of openness that 

I think I’m proud that I do on my review issues, you know, is— 

sometimes doesn’t happen. And clearly there have been a lot of papers—a lot—a number of papers that have been opposing hydraulic 

fracking who have been—these papers have been really pretty outrageous. And when I ask the editors, well, who reviewed these pa-
119 

pers, let them out, and I discovered that it’s a community of people 

who have common views. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. They have an end in mind? 

Dr. SIEGEL. They have an end in mind. And it’s just unfortunate. 

But part of it is the system is clogged. I’ve written a couple essays 

on this, published in Science and Nature, you know, on—there’s 

just too many papers being submitted, too few reviewers to do it 

capably, and so stuff is getting out that just really isn’t very good. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to return to the issue of injection-induced seismicity. And 

just first a general question: What fraction of hydrofracking operations depend on wastewater injection for their economic viability? 

So specifically let’s imagine that in some area it turns out that 

wastewater injection had to be restricted because of seismicity concerns. Is that a mortal blow to fracking operations or merely a nuisance? Anyone who wants to—— 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. If I understood your question, over 90 percent of 

the wells being drilled now are unconventional oil and gas wells, 

and they frequently use large quantities of water, as noted in my 

testimony. There—because of concerns about earthquakes and because of concerns about other problems, impacts on taxpayers, for 

example, in the State of Pennsylvania where the publicly owned 

water treatment works simply couldn’t handle some of the materials that were coming back—that were coming to those treatment 

works in wastewater, states have been racing to put in place new 

measures to protect the taxpayers and their water supplies. But 

yes. 

And so now in Pennsylvania they don’t do injection wells at all 

and the wastewater goes to the State of Ohio mainly that still permits deep water—excuse me, deep well injection. So it is a common 

practice—— 

Mr. FOSTER. But typically there are alternatives—— 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. —if it turns out that it’s only the wastewater injection that’s the big problem? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Industry is working on recycling but you can’t do 

the scale of hydraulic fracturing that the industry is employing 

now without these large volumes as far as I know. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yeah. Now, in areas where there appears to have 

been an increase in seismic activity associated with drilling and injection operations, is there evidence of either insurance rates going 

up or property values going down? And if that does happen, what 

is the legal framework for homeowners, you know, recovering for 

their losses? 

Mr. LOMAX. I can give you some information about property values in Weld County, Colorado, which is the county that has more 

oil and gas wells in it than any other in Colorado. It has almost 

half of the State’s 50,000. And property values in Weld County 

have been growing significantly at the same time as increased oil 

and gas development, and there are some wastewater disposal 
120 

wells in Weld County, Colorado. So in Weld County there is an increase in values. 

Mr. FOSTER. Relative comparably situated places without the 

drilling activities? I understand Colorado real estate is doing pretty 

well these days. This is a side-by-side comparison or just an absolute statement that—— 

Mr. LOMAX. This is based on some commentary from the Weld 

County Tax Assessor, who was asked specifically about do you see 

any kind of impact on oil and gas—do you see any impact on property values based on proximity to oil and gas operations, including 

wastewater disposal wells? And he has said that they don’t see any 

difference between that and the rest of the county. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. And it’s my understanding there’s at least anecdotal evidence that in Oklahoma, that there are some unhappy 

local residents who might be—there might be some affect there 

for—of lowering property values. Anyway, I—okay. 

Another thing has to do with the timescale for observing and diagnosing seismic activity as a result of drilling or wastewater injection. You can imagine different geological scenarios, one of which 

is that you start the wastewater injection and you have a very 

large number of small quakes or that there’s—nothing happens and 

that you just simply get a stress buildup underground to the point 

where you get, after a long period of time, one giant or relatively 

large quake. 

And how would you actually correctly identify the causal link? It 

would be easy in the first case because you could start and stop the 

wastewater injection and watch the seismic activity start and stop. 

In the second one, it sounds tough because you’re talking about 

something where you could—where a large seismic event could be 

the result of a long—you know, decades of drilling. And how do you 

handle that from a liability point of view and from even identifying 

the causal relationship there? 

Ms. CRADDICK. I think that’s what we’re all trying to figure out 

at this point because if you look, for instance, in the Permian 

Basin, we’ve obviously been drilling for a long time and don’t really 

see a lot of earthquakes at this point out there. But if you look in 

the Barnett Shale, which is where the SMU study is from, we’ve 

been drilling actively since 2008 but the amount of drilling has declined because it’s a natural gas play by quite a bit. 

So that’s where both seismologists and scientists are trying to 

figure out because I’m not sure you can ever completely find the 

answer to your question. That’s the biggest challenge is your modeling. It depends on the modeling of the scientific study, as I’ve 

been advised, and the researchers looking at that, but it’s not— 

there’s not one best model at this point. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. My question about the legal framework, you 

know, if in the end it looks like some real damage to the seismic 

stability has been done by these operations, what is the legal 

framework? Do individual homeowners have to sue someone who 

may have gone out of business years ago or what is the—— 

Chairman SMITH. Could we have a brief answer to this question? 

We’re going to try to finish before we have to leave for votes. 

And who do you—Mr. Foster, who are you directing the question 

to? 
121 

Mr. FOSTER. Anyone who feels capable of answering it. 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Congressman, I’ll say I don’t know the legal 

framework but I’d emphasize that this is—exactly makes this conundrum—exactly makes my point earlier, which is that the oil 

and gas industry is not static, and therefore, regulatory oversight 

and scientific inquiry must keep up with the ever-changing elements and challenges associated with this heavy industry. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Foster. 

If the three remaining Members who have questions can limit 

themselves to three minutes each, we can get you all in. We have 

an hour’s worth of votes so I’d like to spare the witnesses having 

to wait for us. 

So, Mr. Moolenaar, you’re up next. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be real quick. 

Ms. Craddick, thank you for being here. I wanted to get your perspective. It sounds like in Texas you work very hard to work with 

the local communities and there’s a partnership that you’ve been 

able to work out in resolving concerns. The question about the Federal Government’s role, I know in Michigan we’ve been doing 

fracking for many years and our Department of Environmental 

Quality has done I think a very good job communicating with citizens about the technologies being used, and I don’t see a big role 

for the Federal Government in this. 

What is your sense? I mean you’re on the ground floor working 

with this both on the state level but also working with local communities. Do you see a role for the Federal Government that would 

in some way address issues that are not being addressed currently 

at the state level? 

Ms. CRADDICK. We think we do it best at the state, quite frankly, 

Congressman. You know, when you look at Texas, we’ve had a casing fracking rule in place for 50 years. EPA is just now proposing 

one. So they’re way behind where the technology is. So we think 

it’s better stayed and working with local communities. 

At the Railroad Commission, we don’t deal with noise pollution, 

traffic issues. Those are local issues, so that’s where we encourage 

operators to really work with those local communities and be good 

citizens. So—but I’m not sure where EPA or other Federal agencies—and we’re blessed that we don’t have a lot of the Federal 

lands like some of the Western—other Western states do. But most 

of us who have been active in oil and gas for a long time, the states 

already have rules in place and it would add another layer of bureaucracy is the biggest concern. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Chairwoman Craddick, it’s good to see you. And I 

wanted to just make—ask you a question about just some of the 

recent activities that have happened in Texas, and I think that it’s 

perfectly reasonable that we would want to be able to produce any 

of our fossil fuels and natural resources that we have for energy 

here so we don’t have to depend upon the Middle East right now, 

particularly with all the craziness that’s going on over there. I 
122 

think it’s perfectly reasonable that we want to be able to produce 

our minerals. 

I also think that it’s perfectly reasonable, whether you are a fisherman or if you’re a hunter, or if you just like gardening in your 

backyard, that you want to be able to have clean air and clean 

water. And that is where your agency and city councils and what 

have you, they take those things into consideration when trying to 

pass ordinances. 

Now, in 2009, your hometown of Midland had some issues with 

spacing. The city council there, which is a community that is pretty 

much completely dependent upon oil and gas for the most part, 

they wanted to be able to create an environment where the city 

could thrive and prosper for economic development reasons, for the 

enjoyment of property, and you—they ultimately passed ordinances. 

Now, the City of Denton did that, too, and the legislature acted 

and Denton is a much more progressive or liberal city than Midland is. Do you think that these cities are being treated fairly in 

regards to being able to outline rules for themselves and how they 

want their city to be able to function? Because it just seems like 

there’s some unfairness there. It seems like what Denton was trying to do was the same thing that Midland was trying to do; they 

were trying to come up with a policy that was good for their particular city. 

Ms. CRADDICK. Yeah, I think the difference between Midland— 

what Midland has done, which I think most people consider reasonable setbacks, that they worked with local operators and communities to try to figure out what is—what worked for their community. The difference is that in Denton they have banned the use of 

anybody in Denton being able to develop their own private property, whereas with a local ordinance, you still can with horizontal 

drilling develop those properties because you can have a reasonable 

setback. 

And look, I think we all agree that being 500 feet or whatever 

a community considers appropriate for a setback to protect health 

and safety is not unreasonable. But then hydraulic fracturing in a 

community, the private property rights of those individuals, you’ve 

basically banned drilling, which historically, as you know, has been 

the purview of a state—the state to regulate it, and so that’s the 

debate right now going on in the Texas Legislature and we’ll see 

where they get. 

Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. 

And the gentleman from Texas, another gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Babin is recognized. 

Mr. BABIN. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Chairman Craddick, thank you for your leadership. Thank all 

you witnesses for being here today. But thank you, Ms. Craddick, 

too, for your leadership of the Railroad Commission of Texas. 

You know, Texas has provided about 50 percent of the jobs in 

this country over the last six years, and I think fracking has been 

a huge contributor to that in more ways than one. But I represent 

the 36th District in Texas, in southeast Texas. There was an incident in 2012 where an individual claimed that the water from their 
123 

garden hose lit on fire. As it turned out, a Texas District Court 

found that the individual had coordinated this stunt with an environmental activist to deceive. In this case, the garden hose was attached to the gas line. 

How does your commission respond to these types of claims when 

you hear about this? 

Ms. CRADDICK. If somebody complains that they believe that a 

well has—and their water is on fire—— 

Mr. BABIN. Right. 

Ms. CRADDICK. —we’re going to go out there and inspect it, first 

and foremost— 

Mr. BABIN. Right. 

Ms. CRADDICK. —get the facts. If there really is a problem, we 

are going to penalize and enforce—make sure, one there’s remediation for the problem; and two, then penalize or enforce the rules 

that we have available to us. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Well, as far as the actual number of legitimate 

incidents of concern, perhaps only a handful, from what I can read, 

have studies. How do we put these risks into perspective with the 

enormous economic and societal benefits of hydraulic fracking technology? 

Ms. CRADDICK. Historically, we’ve drilled over a million wells in 

the State of Texas, and we take all of those seriously. We have over 

400,000 that are active wells that we are regulating as we speak. 

And—— 

Mr. BABIN. Yeah. 

Ms. CRADDICK. —part of our real challenge is to make sure we’re 

out inspecting and enforcing our rules but to make sure we’re also 

doing it on a reasonable basis, that there are good rules in place, 

people know the rules, but to also make sure there are facts involved, and I think—— 

Mr. BABIN. Yeah. 

Ms. CRADDICK. —we’re a very fact-based agency. We have good 

rules I believe. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you very much—— 

Ms. CRADDICK. Thank you. 

Mr. BABIN. —Mr. Chairman. I know we have to go vote. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Babin. 

Let me thank all of our witnesses today. This has been an exceptionally good hearing. And I want to say to you all it’s a credit to 

you and a credit to the significance of this subject that we had 20 

Members appear at this hearing. That’s probably a new record any 

time but it’s certainly a new record for a nine-o’clock-in-the-morning hearing. So I again appreciate your presence. 

Now, hydraulic fracturing has occurred safely for decades and is 

largely responsible for an improved economy, expansion of energy 

options, and less reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Given this history 

and importance to our economy, attempts to regulate the process 

should be based on sound science and not science fiction. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional written 

comments and written questions from Members. 

Again, I thank the Members and the witnesses, and we stand adjourned. 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
124 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(125) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
126 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Ms. Christi Craddick 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 

Responses by Dr. Donald Siegel 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 

Responses by Mr. Simon Lomax 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 

Responses by Mr. Elgie Holstein 
174 
175 
176 
177 

(179) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
180 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE SUZANNE BONAMICI
413 

Æ