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

25–468PDF 2017

OIL AND GAS TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 3, 2017 

Serial No. 115–12 

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 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California, Vice Chair 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

AMI BERA, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

May 3, 2017 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Marc A. Veasey, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Edward Johnston, Senior Vice President for Research and Development, 

GasTechnology Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Dr. Dave Brower, Founder and President, Astro Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

Mr. Walker Dimmig, Principal, 8 Rivers Capital, LLC 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36 

Dr. Ramanan Krishnamoorti, Interim VP/VC for Research and Technology 

Transfer, Univ.of Houston & Univ. of Houston System; and Chief Energy 

Officer University of Houston 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 46 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 58 

(1) 

OIL AND GAS TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman WEBER. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to 

order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses 

of the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Oil and Gas Technology Innovation.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Today, we will have the opportunity to hear about exciting new 

research and developments in oil and gas. Fossil fuels continue to 

be America’s dominant energy source and provide over 80 percent 

of the energy around the world. It’s no surprise that we have a robust industry here at home investing in developing the next generation of technologies to help produce American fossil fuels more 

efficiently, more safely, and at a lower cost for American consumers. 

Our hearing today will highlight individuals and private sector 

organizations taking a leading role in oil and gas technology innovation. Much like our Committee roster, we see a lot of our Texas 

innovators on our panel today. 

As we worked to put together today’s hearing, I quickly learned 

we could fill this room with innovators from across Texas and the 

country who are exploring new ways to improve a broad range of 

technologies that can help revolutionize this industry. My staff and 

I have had the opportunity to talk to researchers from the University of Texas, Texas A&M, University of Houston, Rice University, 

and the DOE national labs, all of whom are conducting research 

that is driven by industry needs. 

We heard about research in materials science, to develop materials resistant to the high temperature and pressure environments 

that occur particularly in offshore drilling. We even learned about 

the unique applications of nanotechnology to monitor the subsurface, and basic research in geology and computing that allows 

industry to make better decisions about when and where they drill. 

I want to thank Dr. Ramanan Krishnamoorti—am I saying that 

right? Close enough, huh? Okay. You’re very kind—from the University of Houston for testifying today and representing the incredible research going on in my home State. I’m a graduate of U of 

H myself, Doctor, by the way, so thank you for being here. I look 

forward to hearing—the Cougars, yes. I look forward to hearing 

your insight on the nexus between this basic and fundamental research and how it applies in the oil and gas industry. 

This brings us to the appropriate role for the Department of Energy. The Department has contributed valuable research in this 

field for decades. Congress first funded DOE’s unconventional oil 

and gas research programs beginning in 1976, and collaboration 

with industry has indeed been a core part of DOE’s research efforts. Historically, the Department has conducted basic and earlystage research, collecting long-term data and maintaining expertise 

to provide industry with the tools necessary to achieve technology 

breakthroughs. 

Industry then led the next step, building on DOE research, to 

commercialize oil and gas technology. Using this collaborative approach, DOE research conducted by the national labs contributed 

to the development of key technology for hydraulic fracturing and 

revolutionized the American economy in the process. 
5 

Today, DOE continues to make targeted investments in earlystage unconventional oil and gas research, while efforts to deploy 

new technology are consistently led by the private sector. The Department also contributes funding to larger, industry-led projects 

measuring seismic data and analyzing geological formations like 

the Gas Technology Institute’s research to maximize the efficiency 

of hydraulic fracturing in the Permian basin, which we’re going to 

hear more about in testimony today. 

As we approach the budget season, it is our job as an authorizing 

committee to make sure that we have a clear picture of what federal research investments provide the most bang for our buck. 

We know that industry has the skills and resources to fund technology commercialization, but they often don’t have the tools to 

conduct early-stage research and maintain that historical data like 

the DOE national labs can. With that in mind, DOE should 

prioritize the basic and early-stage research that provides data and 

analytical tools to researchers and allows the private sector to commercialize groundbreaking technology. 

I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today, and I look forward to hearing more about your innovative research. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman WEBER. And with that, I will recognize my good friend 

from Texas, Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

you for holding this hearing and thank you for having the witnesses here today. It looks like we have a really—a good distinguished panel, glad that there are two Texans leading this discussion on energy and oil production technology, and it really is amazing how that technology has played such a major part in the world 

changing just in the last two years. It really is very, very miraculous. 

And as you know, the State of Texas represents the largest share 

of the U.S. oil and gas industry. And everyone here knows that we 

produce more crude oil and we also produce a lot of natural gas. 

And this industry has been a major economic driver for our State 

for a long time, employing hundreds and thousands of Texans. In 

order to continue this economic success, it is necessary for our 

State to lead the way in making oil and gas cleaner and safer for 

the environment and public health. 

I’m happy to see that everyone on the panel today can speak to 

the crucial importance of the environmental mitigation in the extraction production and consumption of oil and gas. I look forward 

to hearing everyone’s insights and ideas. Because—even though 

there has been some disagreement, we all know for certain that 

human activity has contributed to the warming of the climate, and 

the scientific community has made clear that we all need to take 

some sort of action on climate change. 

And so what does this mean for the oil and gas industry? The 

shale gas boom can take credit for much of the U.S. emissions reductions over the last five years. Much of the power generation sector has switched to natural gas, and we’ve enjoyed the benefits of 

this cleaner-burning resource. 

However, this is not a sufficient long-term solution to lowering 

our emissions. Methane, the largest component of natural gas, has 

84 times the heat-trapping capacity of carbon dioxide over a 20- 

year span. Aging infrastructure, greater storage demand, and a 

growing pipeline network present a number of challenges in monitoring and preventing these leaks. 

The most notable leak since the shale gas boom occurred in 2015 

at the Aliso Canyon storage facility in California. The leak resulted 

in the release of 109,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere. While methane is colorless and odorless, we know the impact it can have on the environment and the health of our own 

communities, as evidenced by this incident that we saw in California. 

Methane leaks are unique in that the environmental incentives 

align with the profit incentives of the industry, but it also can 

mean a loss of profit for industry. But working together, we can 

provide the incentives and research necessary to drastically reduce 

methane leaks by closely aligning the industry’s bottom line with 

our urgent need to protect the environment. 

The increased reliance on natural gas also highlights another 

long-term challenge, and that is the deployment of carbon capture 

technologies. The use of this resource still pumps out greenhouse 

gases at an unsustainable rate, and that is why we must accelerate 
9 

the deployment of carbon capture technologies not only for coalfired plants but also for natural gas power generation. 

According to the International Energy Agency, carbon capture 

and storage technologies are vital to enabling a robust global response in addressing the threat of climate change. The necessity is 

reflected in the Paris climate negotiations, and we are not short on 

innovative concepts. 

I particularly look forward to hearing from Mr. Dimmig on NET 

Power’s unique zero-emissions design that they are trying to commercialize in Texas in the next few years. 

And before I finish, I would also like to note that during today’s 

dialogue, we may hear a few inaccurate or misleading statements 

comparing incentives for fossil fuel versus those for various forms 

of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The most obvious inaccuracy in this criticism is the presumption that all renewable energy is the same. It’s not, as if solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower are not all unique forms of energy generation. 

Claiming a lack of parity in research and development funding 

by comparing fossil energy research budget lines to budgets for efficiency and all of these renewable sources lumped together is not 

only misleading, it ignores the basic fact of how our energy markets work. Fossil energy has enjoyed strong government support for 

the past century, including tax incentives, subsidies, research, development funding. In fact the current boom in natural gas production can be traced back to research on horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing pioneered by the Department of Energy in the 

1970s. 

Moreover, fossil energy commands strong control over the electric 

generation and transportation markets, and yet some of my Republican colleagues cry foul when the biggest energy companies in the 

world do not receive the same dollar-for-dollar government support 

as all other energy industries combined. 

I strongly support government research and development to advance energy efficiency, the wide range of renewable energy technologies, and nuclear power. However, this does not mean that the 

Department of Energy can’t or shouldn’t support a robust portfolio 

of fossil energy research and development as well. This area of research requires a strong partnership between government and industry focused on mitigating the environmental impacts of fossil 

energy generation. 

The Department of Energy’s work in this space is vital to our environmental priorities. I hope we have the opportunity this Congress to collaborate with our colleagues on the majority in examining how we can prioritize and expand the Department’s R&D in 

this critical area. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience. I know I went over 

my time there, and I yield back the balance of my time, and again 

want to thank the panel for being here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Veasey follows:] 
10 
11 
12 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to say this is an important subject today, and I appreciate 

you having a hearing on it. 

Today, we will discuss recent breakthroughs in oil and gas technology. Innovators continue to build on decades of groundbreaking 

successes in oil and gas production, maintaining America’s technology leadership. This area of research is particularly successful 

due to continued collaboration between industry, universities, and 

national labs. We also will discuss the appropriate balance between 

the private sector leadership and the Department of Energy in applied research and technology development. 

The oil and gas industry has a long and successful history of 

maximizing the research conducted by DOE to further technological breakthroughs. Before hydraulic fracturing and horizontal 

drilling revolutionized oil and gas production, basic and early-stage 

research funded by the Department provided valuable tools and 

knowledge to industry. In the 1980s, Sandia National Lab collaborated with industry to develop the primary drill bit used in horizontal drilling. And Sandia National Lab’s basic research in geology led to the development of microseismic fracture mapping techniques for hydraulic fracturing. Industry partners adapted these 

techniques for commercial use and deployed technology to maximize energy production across the country. 

The partnership between DOE and the private sector must have 

the right structure for success. DOE is best suited to provide the 

early-stage research that allows industry the opportunity to commercialize and use new technology in the field. This approach allows for the most cost-effective and efficient technology to be deployed by oil and gas companies. We don’t need mandates to motivate producers to use the most efficient production technology. 

Technology that improves development often reduces the footprint and environmental impact of energy development. It also lowers costs for consumers. R&D is a great way to improve our environment and power our economy. Federally funded research in one 

area also can provide economic benefits and new technology where 

we least expect it. 

One of our witnesses today—David Brower, the founder of Astro 

Technology—spent his career as an engineer working with NASA 

and the Department of Defense. After years of working on rocket 

propulsion and safety, he discovered that he could effectively apply 

many of the sensor technologies used in the aerospace industry to 

improve safety in oil and gas development. This is the kind of 

groundbreaking technology that we cannot predict when we fund 

basic and early-stage research. 

Like many of my colleagues, I share a commitment to the longterm use of our nation’s most abundant and affordable fuel source. 

DOE’s fossil energy research programs can pave the way for industry to develop the next generation of technologies. But for this partnership to be a success, industry must continue to take a leading 

role. 

I look forward to a discussion about what policies Congress and 

DOE should pursue to encourage more industry-led research and 
13 

development efforts. In Congress, we have the responsibility to ensure the efficient and effective use of American tax dollars. By investing in early-stage research and encouraging strategic partnerships between DOE and industry, we will ensure that our vast natural resources will continue to provide affordable and efficient fuel 

for the American economy. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
14 
15 
16 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Chairman, before I close, I want to recognize James Danford, who is sitting right behind me, and he is our 

Science Committee Legal Assistant and Speechwriter who has 

helped me at numerous committee hearings and markups over the 

past five years. James’ last day on the Committee will be next Friday. 

He has been attending Georgetown Law School at night while 

working at the Science Committee full-time and will graduate May 

21. 

James and his wife Christa, my Executive Assistant, will be moving back to Texas for James to take a job at a Houston law firm. 

James and Christa have each been on my staff for almost six years. 

They are expecting their first child in July. So we wish them 

health, happiness, and success. 

And James will you stand up and let us give you some applause 

here? 

Chairman WEBER. So, James and did you meet your wife here on 

the Science Committee? 

Mr. DANFORD. No, we’ve been dating since high school. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. So it took you a long time. I see how 

you are. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I now recognize the Ranking 

Member of the Full Committee for a statement. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Let me congratulate James 

and say good wishes for the future. And thank all of our witnesses, 

Mr. Chairman, for being here. 

This is an interesting topic. I think it’s interesting to note that 

both the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Full Committee 

and the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member are all Texans, and the Secretary of Energy now is also a Texan. So you can 

tell that there is interest in this topic in Texas. 

Certainly, the oil and gas sector is in is one area in which we 

see how advances in science and engineering can produce largescale economic value, and our federal R&D agencies have played a 

historic role in this process. Just over a decade ago, we had little 

idea of the fossil resources that would be available to us today. 

However, due to some critical research investments made by the 

Department of Energy over 40 years ago, coupled with rising oil 

prices and in previous decades, the American economy underwent 

the shale gas revolution, bringing natural gas resources online and 

with it a sharp increase in domestic oil production. 

The DOE—that program in DOE wrapped up in the early ’90s 

when a private company took the research performed by DOE and 

used it to ignite the oil and gas boom we see today. I think my colleagues would agree that that is the model of DOE’s energy technology programs that we all hope to see: federal investments shepherding transformative technologies to the marketplace even when 

the endpoint is not clear at the beginning of the process. 

That brings us to what should be fundamental questions today. 

Where should the Department of Energy be investing limited dollars in this area? If the standard of identifying of a government 

role rests in whether the private industry has the capacity to invest in R&D, then I think the answer to the question of DOE investments in oil and gas is that the federal role should be very lim-
17 

ited. After all, it is hard to think of a sector that is much more 

commercial and on average more profitable than the oil and gas industry. For this reason, I believe the Department should focus its 

investments on environmental mitigation. At present there is little 

incentive for industry to spend major R&D dollars to protect the 

environment. 

If this hearing is intended to highlight the importance of oil and 

gas to the economy, hopefully, I can save us some time. I am from 

Dallas. Oil and gas will play an important role in our nation’s economy for decades to come. My hope is that our outcome of these 

hearings will be to push the present Administration to reconsider 

its position to drastically reduce R&D funding for fossil energy. I 

would support that endeavor as long as it comes along with strong 

support of DOE’s other energy technology programs. When it comes 

to R&D funding, Republicans and Democrats should be speaking 

with one voice. Investments in R&D benefit our nation. 

In closing, I would like to challenge the current Administration 

and our colleagues on this Committee to be forward-looking in our 

push to develop the next-generation energy economy. Drilling our 

way to economic growth while ignoring the long-term impacts cannot be the answer as we face a warming climate and the significant 

consequences that come along with that. Our environment and the 

health of the public is on the line. 

And so I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
18 
19 
20 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the Ranking Member, and I will introduce the panel. 

Our first witness today is Mr. Edward Johnston, Senior Vice 

President for Research and Development at the Gas Technology Institute. Mr. Johnston received his bachelor’s degree in mechanical 

engineering from Mississippi State University and his MBA from 

University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. 

And our next witness today is Mr. David Brower, founder and 

President of Astro Technology. Mr. Brower received both his bachelor’s degree in material science and mechanical engineering and a 

master’s of science degree from the University of Utah. 

And then our next witness is Mr. Walker Dimmig, Principal at 

8 Rivers Capital, LLC. Mr. Dimmig received his bachelor’s degree 

in political science from Middlebury College. 

And our last witness is Dr. Ramanan Krishnamoorti, Interim 

Vice President and Interim Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology Transfer at the University of Houston and University of 

Houston System—go Cougs—as well as Chief Energy Officer at the 

University of Houston. Dr. Krishnamoorti obtained his bachelor’s 

degree in chemical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology Madras and doctoral degree in chemical engineering from 

Princeton University. 

I now recognize you, Mr. Johnston, for five minutes to present 

your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. EDWARD JOHNSTON, 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT, 

GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member Johnson, and the rest of the Members of the Subcommittee. 

On behalf of GTI, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding innovation in the upstream oil and 

gas sector. My name is Eddie Johnston. I’m the Senior Vice President of Research and Technology Development at GTI, and we’re 

an independent, not-for-profit R&D organization. Our vision is to 

turn raw technology into practical energy solutions that have 

meaningful impact for both the economy and the environment. 

I’m here to talk about shale research, and while shale development seems like an overnight occurrence to most, decades of research and cooperative field experiments by GTI and DOE underpin the technical complexities of producing this resource. 

Shale rock has very low permeability, so stimulation can be very 

challenging and require significant energy. In shale formations, the 

recovery rate is typically below 20 percent for gas and ten percent 

for oil and sometimes even much lower. This is the grand challenge. Field experiments we’ve conducted indicate that as many as 

80 percent of fracture treatments did not significantly contribute to 

overall production. Effective, yes; efficient, no. This inefficiency has 

direct environmental implications, and by optimizing fracture efficiencies, fewer wells will need to be drilled, which leads to fewer 

trucks, less water, reduced emissions, and less community impact. 
21 

To address these issues, GTI launched the Permian project, our 

hydraulic fracturing test site in West Texas. Our goal is simple in 

concept: substantially advance the hydraulic fracturing process to 

optimize well spacing so fewer wells are needed. The problem, 

though, is multifaceted. Subsurface completion science continues to 

be a complex process with many variables that affect the locations 

where fractures propagate, their dimensions, and their ability to 

enhance production. Direct and reliable data is still needed about 

the size, shape, and distance that hydraulic fractures actually propagate. 

Optimizing resource recovery techniques requires input from the 

best and brightest from industry, universities, national labs, research institutes, and the only way to realistically do this is via 

public-private partnership. So with the assistance of a $7.4 million 

cooperative agreement from the Fossil Energy Office, GTI was able 

to pull together a partner in Laredo Petroleum that provided a test 

site and personnel in the Permian, along with $100 million of 

microseismic and other background data. 

A joint industry partnership of Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Core 

Labs, Devon, Discovery Natural Resources, Encana, Energen, Halliburton, Shell, and TOTAL that sponsored the additional $16 million of research work and also provided subject matter experts to 

contribute to the scope and a team of leading researchers from the 

University of Texas, The Bureau of Economic Geology, and NETL. 

And over this 11-well experiment, more than 400 fracture stages 

were monitored, and we continue to study the production from 

these fractures today. But the key differentiator of this work is the $6 million core well 

as we captured 600 feet of unique core through fracture zones by 

drilling a one-of-a-kind slant core well. More people have actually 

examined rocks from the moon than they have through fractured 

core. Extracting core of this magnitude is an expensive and risky 

undertaking, but this ground truth evidence is critical to understanding fractures and improving models and to consider how predictive analytics can improve the process. Important data about 

propagation and proppant transport dynamics will lead to the design of optimal fracture treatments and ultimately ideal well spacing. Many of the findings will likely be transferable to other basins, 

but shale is a heterogeneous resource, so much work is still needed 

to be done. 

We have planned future work in the Permian and signed a letter 

of intent with BHP Billiton for a test site in the Delaware basin, 

part of the Permian that is deeper, at higher pressures and temperatures, and different permeability than the Laredo site. Interested partners are looking for a commitment from DOE that signals continued support for this type of important research. This investment will be the catalyst for the next phase of learning. 

In conclusion, shale has recalibrated world energy markets, 

helped resurrect our economy, provided U.S. consumers clean, affordable energy. Much has been accomplished by the mechanical 

innovations by industry, but the subsurface science work is clearly 

incomplete. Continued field experiments are critical to achieve desired recovery rates for more responsible development. The involvement of the public funding ensures the results are ultimately 
22 

shared broadly rather than being held by a select few. This will 

allow us to maximize our national energy resource and accelerate 

our path to energy security and independence. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak today, and I’d be 

happy to answer any questions when it’s the correct time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnston follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Johnston. Dr. Brower, you’re 

recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVE BROWER, 

FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, 

ASTRO TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. BROWER. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for having me here this morning. As mentioned, my name is 

David Brower. I have much experience in science and technology, 

and I’ve spent my 37-year career working on rocket technology for 

defense and space applications. I’ve also worked in the energy industry for over the past 20 years. 

The combination of aerospace, energy, and government experience has allowed me to develop and implement entirely new hightechnology methods into the energy industry. The primary objective 

of my work has been to identify and prevent potential problems before they occur. In doing so, we should be able to mitigate environmental contamination from hydrocarbon spillage and offshore and 

land-based operations, for example, to head off catastrophic events 

such as the major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico during summer of 

2010 and many less publicized smaller spills our candidates also. 

The innovative methods also improve safety and help increase production and operation capabilities. 

Since I formed Astro Technology in 1994, I have been a committed advocate of strong working relationships between government and industry. Currently, we work under a Space Act agreement with NASA. The resulting work activity has been instrumental in transfer of high-technology methods into the energy industry. Twice—in 2004 and 2015—our efforts have been highlighted in NASA’s annual spinoff report to Congress. This highly 

effective government-to-industry approach has led to several deepwater sensor implementations in the Gulf of Mexico with several 

others in progress. I should mention that our collaboration has included university support as well. Consequently, we’ve been able to 

identify and potentially prevent structural failure, ensure environmental protection, and at the same time improve operations. 

Our venture began with the START treaty as part of the counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the republics of the 

former Soviet Union. As a result of that work, I was successful in 

development and application of new advanced sensors. In mid- to 

late 1990s, several oil and gas companies approached me about 

solving problems on a deep-water pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico. 

They needed a sensor that could measure pressure on the interior 

of a subsea pipeline that did not require penetrations leading to 

possible leak paths. After the successful task, several more oil and 

gas projects resulted. 

Twenty years later, significant progress has been made with 

NASA’s assistance to advanced technology in oil and gas. Much 

more effort is needed. Astra Technology started a research and development project called Clear Gulf approximately a decade ago. 

This effort includes 10 research areas such as identification and 

mitigation of structural integrity that could cause significant hydrocarbon spillage. 
30 

Flow assurance monitoring is another research area we’re addressing to prevent blockage of flowlines from hydrocarbon and hydrate formation. Also advanced robotic development will fill a significant gap in current large-scale remotely operated vehicles. The 

new robots would work and live subsea. They will have dexterous 

capability and perform finesse work operations mimicking human 

capability. Another exciting research area is the repair of older or 

soon-to-fail structures that are in deep-water fields. 

By definition, I believe the role of small business in new advanced methods is clearly that of innovation. Large companies are 

highly suited for implementation, and government support, encouragement, technology direction, and possible incentives. 

It can be very difficult to achieve implementation of new technology methods. A stronger alliance between government and industry could solve that problem. I’ve been very fortunate to have 

a string of successful projects. My journey would’ve been much 

more difficult without government support. 

My thoughts going forward involve a stronger working relationship between small business mainstream oil and gas companies, 

universities, and U.S. Government. My experience with oil and gas 

companies has been very positive. They sometimes have fear of trying anything new. However, as we move into future endeavors, it 

becomes increasingly important to develop and apply advanced 

technologies to ensure environmentally clean operations, troublefree work effort, and better control of operational processes. 

In conclusion, I recommend the formation of a short-term task 

team that addresses the issues discussed. The team should consist 

of small business entities, DOE, several subject matter experts 

from large oil and gas companies, and universities. 

Thank you again for the invitation and your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brower follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Brower. 

Mr. Dimmig, you’re up. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WALKER DIMMIG, 

PRINCIPAL, 8 RIVERS CAPITAL, LLC 

Mr. DIMMIG. Thank you, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member 

Veasey, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss energy technology innovation with you today. 

Eight Rivers is a technology commercialization firm focused on 

developing breakthrough industrial innovations. Today, I will be 

sharing perspective gained from developing one such innovation on 

the natural gas utilization side known as the Allam cycle, which 

is a new direct-fired supercritical CO2 power cycle for use with natural gas or coal. It projects to compete on the cost of electricity 

basis with existing best-in-class power plants today. Importantly, 

the technology does this while producing virtually no air emissions. 

Water and high-pressure, high-purity CO2 are the only byproducts 

of the cycle. 

Because the cycle can inherently produce pipeline-ready CO2, it 

presents an opportunity to transform the enhanced oil recovery industry by providing a supply of affordable CO2, which would enable 

over 100 billion barrels of domestic oil to be accessed even in lowoil-price environments. In order to produce this oil, billions of tons 

of power sector CO2 would be sequestered. In short, the Allam cycle 

has the potential to be a major win for the electricity sector, the 

oil and gas industry, the environment, and consumers. 

Today, NET Power, a company owned by 8 Rivers, the power 

company Exelon, and the engineering firm CB&I is building a 50- 

megawatt thermal pilot-scale natural gas demonstration plant 

down in La Porte, Texas, with over $140 million in private investment into it. The plant is within months of entering into operation, 

and it is designed to provide the information required to then build 

the first 300-megawatt commercial-scale natural gas plant. 

Eight Rivers’ experience in commercializing this technology and 

others supports the view that federal government support has an 

important role in energy technology development from R&D 

through to deployment. The R&D process is long, expensive, and 

highly uncertain. Without government participation at this stage, 

it would be difficult for 8 Rivers to execute on its model for commercializing important energy innovations. 

Examples of federally funded R&D are present all throughout 

the Allam cycle. Most commonly, 8 Rivers has been able to take 

proven R&D that was originally pursued for other purposes such 

as materials for supercritical coal boilers or heat exchanger 

learnings from a solar program and apply that technology in the 

Allam cycle. 

In addition, the DOE has a new supercritical CO2 crosscutting 

initiative, and we’re hopeful this program will lead to opportunities 

to further advance the Allam cycle in important ways. But our experience is also that public-partner private partnerships remain 

critical all the way through to deployment of first-of-a-kind commercial plants. The Allam cycle is currently entering this challenging period. 
35 

A first-of-a-kind commercial facility needs to operate successfully 

in the market against fully mature technologies, and yet it has to 

do so with costs that are significantly higher than even the second 

facility of its kind. Reasons for this can include inefficient supply 

chains, designs that have not yet been fully optimized, large firsttime engineering costs, increased contingency fees, and even less 

competitive warranties. 

Programs that partner with the private sector through grants to 

assist in building first-of-a-kind projects can be essential. One such 

program is the Clean Coal Power Initiative. Importantly, a similar 

program for natural gas projects such as the one IN that Power is 

now pursuing, does not exist. Cost challenges do not completely dissipate by the second plant. They reduce over time. Ongoing assistance for these projects through mechanisms such as a reformed 

45Q tax credit for CCS can be critical to ensuring these technologies are able to reach their full potential and are not just developed into niche applications. 

Finally, we believe federal R&D programs should be very goaloriented across the technology portfolio, and, rather than being too 

technology-prescriptive, programs should have the flexibility to 

pivot with industry to achieve those goals. For example, 8 Rivers 

began by developing the Allam cycle for coal, but it became quickly 

apparent that the coal development pathway must first proceed 

through natural gas. This was the lowest-cost, least-risky, and 

most impactful approach. 

Similarly, federal programs could benefit from being structured 

to work with both coal and natural gas utilization technologies as 

this flexibility could help technologies move forward for one fuel in 

a way that also represents a major advance for the other fuel and 

achieves broader program goals. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I welcome 

any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dimmig follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Dimmig. 

Dr. Krishnamoorti, you’re up. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. RAMANAN KRISHNAMOORTI, 

INTERIM VP/VC FOR RESEARCH 

AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, 

UNIV.OF HOUSTON & UNIV. OF HOUSTON SYSTEM; 

AND CHIEF ENERGY OFFICER UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON 

Dr. KRISHNAMOORTI. Thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you 

for asking me today to talk about the critical partnership between 

academia, industry, and national labs that are helping move the oil 

and gas industry forward. 

My name is Ramanan Krishnamoorti. I’m the Interim Vice President, Vice Chancellor for research and technology transfer at the 

University of Houston, but I’m also the Chief Energy Officer. 

Guided by a distinguished panel of the—of our Energy Advisory 

Board comprising top executives from the energy industry, we at 

the—at UH are committed to becoming the energy university. 

At the University of Houston, located in the energy capital of the 

world, we strongly believe that fundamental advances in science 

and engineering, when appropriately coupled with industry-based 

pull, can help transform the capital-intensive oil and gas industry. 

Just as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have transformed the availability of shale oil and gas, UH is working with industry and national laboratories and other academic institutions to 

create the next transformative technologies to advance conventional and unconventional, as well as terrestrial and offshore oil 

and gas. 

We are focused on dramatically increasing the amount of hydrocarbon resources that can be recovered, while minimizing the impact on the environment and therefore ensuring the continued supply of affordable energy solutions. Such a focus requires commitment to all aspects of the oil and gas industry, including regulation, business policy and management, public policy, human factors, and naturally, fundamental and applied science, engineering, 

and technology. 

In my written testimony I’ve provided a detailed report on the 

impact of the University of Houston in providing innovative strategies to lower costs and develop safer methods to find and produce 

oil and gas. These innovative solutions include responses to immediate challenges and strategic long-term disruptive technologies. 

The key issues are summarized as—I’m going to have four points 

here. 

First, technology innovations require a strong connection between industry pull for targeted applications and the academic 

push for fundamental and applied advances in science, engineering, 

and technology. Some notable examples of industry collaborationdriven advances are the significant speeding up of seismic interpretation through advanced computing, the development of smart cements, developing enhanced oil recovery formulations for high-temperature and high-salinity reservoirs, and sensing and preventing 

microbial corrosion of pipelines. For these innovations to continue, 
45 

the business of oil and gas will require the embrace of human factor-centric design, standardization, and system integration. 

The second point is disruptive technologies advances in oil and 

gas are likely to come from fundamental advances in various fields, 

including nanotechnology, life sciences, data analytics, and cognitive computing. But given the capital expenses and long runways 

between fundamental research, applied development, deployment, 

and commercialization, those advances would require continued engagement by federal and state agencies for fundamental breakthroughs and possibly by incubation through engaged national laboratories as technologies are developed. Specifically, engaging 

NASA Johnson Space Center with the University of Houston and 

the Subsea Systems Institute for the adoption and deployment of 

automated underwater vehicles and risk modeling for deep-water 

missions are examples of best-in-class engagement. 

My third point, the oil and gas industry is challenged with socalled crew change as experienced geophysicists, geoscientists, engineers, and others retire, taking with them an enormous amount 

of expertise over the next ten years. Academia plays a critical role 

in partnering with industry in the continued enhancement of the 

workforce for this industry and the continued engagement of subject matter experts to advance technological solution. 

Finally, it is important to emphasize the cyclical nature of the industry with boom and bust cycles all too common. Combined with 

the long runways for the development of resources such as those 

in the ultradeep water and those found in high-temperature, highpressure reservoirs, the continued development of technology innovations remains critical and requires sustained public investment. 

Mr. Chairman, at the University of Houston we are proud of the 

interactions we’ve forged with the industry and the demonstrated 

value of these partnerships. I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today and look forward to answering your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Krishnamoorti follows:] 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Doctor. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes. This will be a question 

for all of you, which I would like to keep short if we can, your answer. We’re going to try to get back to some more questions. In 

your opinion, what is the appropriate role of government in oil and 

gas research and development? Let me explain. Are we better off 

focusing limited federal funds on applied energy research or the 

demonstration and commercialization of energy technologies? Mr. 

Johnston? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. So I would start by saying the leverage of the 

funds of the project that we have I think are a very appropriate 

way to utilize that fund. So we’re actually taking first principles 

and marrying them with industry, so trying to get to the fundamental issue that’s causing the inefficiencies in hydraulic fracturing but also bringing partners along with that. I think that is 

a very appropriate role for these types of funds in these privatepublic partnerships. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brower? 

Dr. BROWER. I think one of the fundamental issues about research in general in the oil and gas industry starts really with the 

definition of what research and development really is because when 

I made the transition from aerospace into the oil world, research 

is defined much differently in both those environments. Research 

in aerospace oftentimes can start with a blank piece of paper and 

just thoughts as they start to generate. In oil and gas, research 

typically begins with something that’s already somewhat downstream. 

I think if I were looking at where some of the funding could be 

utilized very effectively, it would be to have a hybrid of both those 

two methods, whereas you’re thinking of new innovative methods 

that could solve some of the problems in oil and gas and combine 

that with things that are a little bit more mature. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. 

Dimmig? 

Mr. DIMMIG. I think it’s in our experience not an either/or scenario. I think—we wouldn’t have technologies to deploy if we don’t 

have a robust R&D base. And we’ve benefited from R&D all 

throughout the Department of Energy, even R&D that wasn’t intended for fossil fuels. So we have to start there. 

At the same time I think we have to recognize that certain technologies that we think are very promising and the market thinks 

are very promising are very capital-intensive, very difficult to get 

into the market in—with that first deployment. And so if we don’t 

follow through with the most promising of those technologies, we 

might leave them behind. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Got you. 

Doctor? 

Dr. KRISHNAMOORTI. I agree with my panelists. It’s not an either/ 

or. I think we learn some of our best lessons when we go to deploy 

them. When we go to deploy technologies we come back and say do 

we have to do research or fundamental basic research that gets applied? And I think we’ve got to have a complete stream of this, but 

to the boom and bust cycles that are so common in the industry 
59 

are today. Industry funding alone cannot move this industry forward. 

Chairman WEBER. Got you. And you’re—actually my next question, in your testimony you discussed how oil and gas production 

is testing the limits of current understanding of engineering principles and presenting new problems along the way. For example, 

you wrote to that, ‘‘As we access more high-temperature, high-pressure reservoirs with ultradeep water exploration production, the 

material challenges have become more significant’’. You go on to 

write that your colleague is conducting materials research to develop new polymers to solve this challenge. Engineering is a practical field. Do you think these practical problems are actually leading to basic science research? And before you answer that, you said 

in your prepared—in your remarks earlier you wanted U of H to 

be the energy universe, so we want to make sure that happens. Do 

you think that these practical problems are leading to basic research? 

Dr. KRISHNAMOORTI. Absolutely in that basic research in materials design and materials development, processing, and deployment is where these practical problems are leading to a significant 

change. And these are not going to just impact the oil and gas industry. It’s going to have a much broader application, for instance, 

in the aerospace industry. You know, the—we’ve had challenges in 

the deep water with the hydrogen embrittlement of bolts. This has 

got parallels to the aerospace industry, and what we’ve learned 

from either of those fields has led to really understanding and improving the technology in the field. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnston, I’m going to jump back to you. Can you give us 

an update on the research at GTI’s hydraulic fracturing test site? 

What are some open problems that the scientists and engineers are 

trying to understand? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. What they’re really trying to figure out now is actually where the proppant goes through the—so we—in this project 

we actually physically, chemically, and radioactively trace the 

proppant so that we have a better understanding of what happens 

within the transport mechanism. So today, it’s really more of analyzing the production, inferring information about the physical evidence that we have, and validating and building new models that 

really help understand, you know, the process. 

Sometimes you induce as many questions as you answer with 

projects like this, and I think that’s why, you know, continued research in this field is very important. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, that’s true about a lot of research in—— 

Mr. JOHNSTON. It is. 

Chairman WEBER. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. It is. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. My time has expired. I’ll now recognize Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this question is for 

Mr. Dimmig. 

Mr. Dimmig, the IEA, among many other widely respected analysts and institutions, has concluded that developing and deploying 

carbon capture technologies in the power generation sector, notably 
60 

including such technologies for natural gas-fired power plants, will 

be critical to achieving the goals of the Paris agreement. I wanted 

to ask you, because NET Power is developing a unique design for 

a natural gas power plan, which would completely eliminate the 

smokestack, how do you see designs like yours fitting into the longterm emissions reduction strategy of the United States and other 

countries that are participating in the Paris agreement? 

Mr. DIMMIG. We think it’s critical. We’ve looked at all of the sort 

of major studies out there, and I would agree they all tend to conclude that without CCS, we’re not going to get to the various climate goals we’ve set. So at 8 Rivers we view finding a fossil fuel 

solution to carbon emissions as a critical requirement mostly because we also see that fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere. We have 

abundant oil and gas here in the United States. We’ll be using that 

for some time to come. 

There’s abundant oil and gas around the world. Coal is being utilized in the developing world quite abundantly, so we know these 

fuels are going to be used and we know in order to meet these 

goals, we’re—then we’re going to have to deal with carbon emissions from that. Our main goal is to try to make that sort of an 

economically relevant choice to make—give people the option to 

build a plant using low-cost abundant fossil fuels and do so in a 

way that limits or eliminates carbon emissions and not make it an 

environmental or an economic choice and make both options palatable in the same facility. 

Mr. VEASEY. As developing countries try to improve their way of 

life, how do you see these technologies playing into all of this for 

those places around the world? 

Mr. DIMMIG. You know, I think the developed world sort of built 

its economies on the back of abundant low-cost fossil fuel. Those 

fields are also abundant in the developing world, and if we want— 

you know, those folks are going to want to bring the same quality 

of life and type of lifestyle we have in the developed world to their 

world. And so fossil fuels are going to be utilized to do that. We 

have an opportunity to do that differently. We have an opportunity 

to do that by building from the start even cleaner infrastructure to 

utilize those fossil—those low-cost abundant fossil fuels. 

Mr. VEASEY. One of the key challenges that have plagued carbon 

capture projects is scalability. I know your pilot scale project is 1/ 

10 the size of the eventual powerplant that NET Power would like 

to commercialize. What are some of the challenges that NET Power 

faces in scaling the technology? 

Mr. DIMMIG. Sure. So we started by designing a commercial-scale 

plant rather than focusing on sort of taking R&D and scaling it 

just to whatever we felt like the next most cost-effective size was. 

We said what does the best commercial product look like and then 

we scaled that as small as we could to build a demonstration plant 

without trying to fundamentally alter that design, fundamentally 

alter the equipment in the plant. So every piece of equipment in 

that plant is being supplied by a supplier that can also supply the 

same piece at a larger size. So we’re very confident about the all 

the equipment in that facility. 

The key piece then to scale would be the turbine. That turbine 

does not exist yet at a larger scale, but we’re benefiting from the 
61 

fact that that turbine could only be made so small due to the pressures of the system so it’s actually operating at less than its full 

capacity and that will—that turbine will actually—in the demonstration plant, it’ll actually then scale up to a commercial plant 

more of a 4X scale-up than a 10X. So we really reduce the scaling 

as much as possible and eliminated sort of technology changes from 

small scale to commercial scale. 

Mr. VEASEY. Interesting. And in your opinion—because we always have this debate on this Committee is what role do you see 

government playing in helping with the scaling up of the technologies like the one you’re testing? 

Mr. DIMMIG. Yes, as I mentioned in my written testimony at 

length and then a little bit of my oral testimony that there—as you 

scale up, there are new risks even if you have the same piece of 

equipment and you’re just making it larger. There’s a new turbine 

in the middle of a plant like this. It’s got to operate against very, 

very mature technologies such as, say, natural gas combined cycle 

plant that’s been in the market operating and becoming efficient 

for 40 years. So it’s a very challenging hurdle to overcome. And so 

when we take that step, you have to figure out how to make that 

plant—that first plant more cost-effective against what’s in the 

market today. 

Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. Thank you, 

Mr. Dimmig. 

Chairman WEBER. I now recognize Mr. Dunn for five minutes. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a fascinating subject. I could quiz you guys all afternoon, 

but let me jump right in here and start with Mr. Johnston. So the 

shale revolution, talk about the first, I would like to get a sense 

of how that actually impacts the average American family and if 

you could also tell us—sort of give us a time horizon how long can 

we count on our shale revolution to take care of us? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, we refer to it as the shale evolution because 

there was decades of investment and field experiments that went 

into this where, you know, most people do see it as an overnight 

occurrence. The average American family today is getting approximately $1,400 back into their pockets through lower utility bills on 

the electric and gas side together because there’s been such a shift 

in power generation from coal to natural gas and lower gas bills 

as well. 

If you look at—just take the Permian basin, for example, you 

know, it’s just one basin but it is now the world’s—considered by 

many the world’s largest super basin of hydrocarbons. And with estimates of 160 billion barrels of oil and looking to double and beyond and you’ll see kind of similar growth—— 

Mr. DUNN. Well, what technology barriers do you see to continuing to efficiently extract all that potential? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, it’s really more fundamental learning than 

I think it is the technology itself. It’s really about being able to understand and predict where you actually make the fractures because, as I pointed out, so many of these are not actually producing 

toward the overall production of the well. So it’s about having a 

better understanding of how the fractures propagate. There could 

be some fundamental things and materials in the proppant itself 
62 

and having more intelligence with the proppants. But it’s really 

about predictive analytics at this point. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you. So I want to turn my attention to Mr. 

Brower. I loved your bio. Sometime I want to get you to come back 

and tell us how you make a spaceship on the moon—out of the 

moon. That’s a great, great background there. But I’m going to ask 

you a different question, though, today. What—you have a relatively small company and a very exciting company. What impact 

are you going to be making on the shale revolution? 

Dr. BROWER. Well, hopefully bigger than most of us think. You 

know, the—it’s the ideas I think that are generated that have the 

impact and not the size of the company. You know, I think back 

to some of the early pioneers in technology such as Thomas Edison, 

you know, just a very small group of people that were able to come 

up with some great innovations. And, you know, he met with a lot 

of opposition, too, when he was developing the lightbulb. Most people were really opposed to it because they thought, you know, we 

already have kerosene lamps; why do we need an electric light 

bulb? 

You know, and so I think that we come up with those kind of 

barriers whenever you—whenever we innovate something new. 

There’s resistance to anything new in a certain level, some of it a 

lot of resistance and some of it much more gentle. But I think that 

the concepts are what really make the difference rather than the 

size of the company. 

Mr. DUNN. And I was actually very fascinated by all the areas 

you’re—you’ve fringed into professionally in your life. 

Mr. Dimmig, I’m going to ask you because you have such a great 

testimony, more written than oral here. If you can direct us may 

be offline to more information on the Allman cycle that’s more than 

we can dive into in the remaining minute we have here, but I’m 

just going to ask you if you could have somebody send us on the 

Committee more information on how that energy cycle actually 

works, just a simple request. 

Mr. DIMMIG. I’d be happy to do that. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you very much. And then, Dr. Krishnamoorti, 

so we’re talking about an insufficient supply of engineers and scientists. What’s the University of Houston doing about that? 

Dr. KRISHNAMOORTI. Well, we started a petroleum engineering 

program seven years ago. We now have 1,000 students in that program. We’ve created the nation’s only subsea engineering program, 

and today, we are graduating about 50 graduate students annually 

in that program. We’ve created a program that is focused on upstream data analytics that is looking at how do you bring all the 

advances we’ve done in high-performance computing and data analytics to the upstream world. 

Mr. DUNN. So I’m not going to trip you up with that question. 

That’s—good job. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, sir. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Takano, for five minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. I thank the Chairman. 
63 

My question—my first question is for Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston, data released by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, shows that the rate of severe injuries across various—well, it shows the rate of severe injuries across various U.S. 

industries. The upstream oil and gas industry was once again one 

of the more dangerous places to work according to these—this report. It tends to have a low injury rate but a very high fatality 

rate. What is the industry doing to improve safety for oil and gas 

industry workers? Is there anything on the technology and research front that industry is funding or could fund to bring the fatality rate down? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Thanks for your question. I grew up as a roughneck on an offshore drilling rig, so this is something kind of personal to me. 

Mr. TAKANO. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. So, you know, it is a hazardous occupation. I 

would have to say that safety, it starts with culture and engineering controls, administrative controls, and things of that nature. 

From the time that I worked offshore in the ’80s to what I saw on 

the—our hydraulic fracturing test site is a huge transformation 

and attention to safety and culture and so on. I was very impressed 

with what our host site Laredo was doing. I’m also our executive 

sponsor of our corporate EH&S team. So I think it really starts 

with having that commitment to a safety management system. 

As far as specific technology, GTI is not developing any technology in the upstream oil and gas sector that’s safety-related. We 

do more in the downstream segment of that business with the distribution companies and public safety in that regard. I’m sure, 

though, that the industry is—has a keen awareness on that. 

Mr. TAKANO. I’m not—you know, I’m not from Texas. I don’t— 

I’m not around it. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. 

Mr. TAKANO. I’m just wondering is—are refineries considered upstream or downstream? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Downstream, yes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Yes. I mean, I—we do have refineries in California—— 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. 

Mr. TAKANO. —and I know that we’ve had some serious incidents 

and accidents in those types of environments. And I’m just wondering if there’s any way in which there can be an improvement 

in technology there or more intensive research. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Certainly. There’s a great book called Failure to 

Learn that is a historical recount of the Texas City Refinery explosion and the deaths that occurred. Every one of my directors has 

read it. I bought them all copies of it because I think that’s one of 

the key pieces of that. But there’s certainly monitoring technology 

and advanced controls and things that are continuing to accelerate 

down the technology path. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Dimmig, I’m going to try and get this question in. Some of 

my colleagues across the aisle often complain that the Department 

of Energy is, quote, ‘‘picking winners and losers,’’ end quote, and 

interfering with the free market by, quote, ‘‘crowding out private 
64 

investment,’’ end quote. I would be interested in your perspective 

given NET Power’s experience in utilizing technologies developed 

by government, as well as in securing private sector investment. 

Should the Department support all research proposals in areas 

equally or should it prioritize investments based on where we can 

get the most value for taxpayer dollars? 

Mr. DIMMIG. I think it should—there should be a priority on 

value. And I think at the end of the day if we believe that these 

technologies—there’s a great public interest in having them available to us and that the R&D was worth it and we want to sort of 

get them into the market. Ultimately, there will be winners and 

losers selected and I think it—the key is to have market pull because the market is very good at picking winners and losers. And 

so getting market—the market to really drive those decisions but 

have the DOE and the federal government as a partner I think is 

a smart way to sort of blend the benefits of both. 

Mr. TAKANO. Dr. Krishnamoorti, I see you nodding your head. Do 

you agree with that? 

Dr. KRISHNAMOORTI. Absolutely. The idea of having an industry 

pull is critical in determining what types of solutions we put together. It cannot be done in isolation of industry pull. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, has the Department picked a lot of important 

winners in the past few decades such as—well, hasn’t it really 

picked some important winners and losers in the past few decades 

such as breakthrough hydraulic fracturing techniques? Is this a 

bad thing? 

Mr. DIMMIG. No, I don’t think that is a bad thing. And again, 

it’s—there’s industry involvement, industry pull that really helped 

drive that technology into the market, but clearly, the Department 

of Energy and the federal government had an important role in 

getting that technology to market and then out the door. 

Mr. TAKANO. Before I yield back, I’ll just note for the record that 

Dr. Krishnamoorti was also nodding his head. 

Chairman WEBER. Did the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. TAKANO. I did. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. And did you say that the other side was 

complaining? You know, we’re husbands. It’s in our job description. 

I’m just saying. 

The gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The energy challenges facing 

the United States today are real and growing. The only way to 

meet these challenges is by investing in research and development. 

Having an R&D portfolio that covers the spectrum from advances 

in basic sciences to cutting-edge technology development, testing 

and deployment greatly augments the critical work being done by 

our private sector in our nation’s colleges and universities. Sustained support of these advances produces significant economic 

dividends for the United States, lowering costs and improving performance of widely used energy technologies. 

President Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposal would deal a 

critical blow to the United States cutting-edge innovation and research in the energy field. It would carve away at critical programs, including the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE’s Office of Science, and even 
65 

the visionary energy advancements being achieved through ARPA– 

E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, with a proven record of moving the horizon of energy research forward. 

At a time when we should be adding to our investments in our 

nation’s future, these cuts would put American research and innovation far behind that of other nations. Many members claim to 

support an all-of-the-above strategy for energy production. I believe 

we also need an all-of-the-above energy research strategy to complement it. 

I recognize the value of federal fossil fuel research when it helps 

us to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions, improve efficiency, and protect Americans’ public health and safety. That is 

why I have authorized bipartisan legislation—I’ve introduced bipartisan legislation to authorize a gas turbine efficiency R&D program. Without DOE’s support, we will lose our nation’s advanced 

manufacturing edge to countries that are investing in advanced 

turbine research. 

Instead, with appropriate investments in turbine efficiency research, we can be saving and creating American jobs while we’re 

working to reduce emissions. Simply put, an all-of-the-above approach cannot be limited to oil and gas technology. We must support research targeting renewables, storage, grid modernization, 

and all other viable options to secure our nation’s energy independence and our global leadership in energy innovation. 

Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA–E, 

modeled on the Defense Department’s DARPA program, invests in 

high-potential, high-impact technologies that are too risky for the 

private sector at this time. ARPA–E is advancing America’s competitiveness around the world. It has fostered cooperative projects 

with academic, federal, and private sector researchers, pushing forward cutting-edge ideas with an eye toward the marketplace. 

So, Mr. Johnston, as far—as it has been widely reported, we understand that ARPA–E is now subject to a no-contract action order 

which prevents the program from taking any action to distribute 

and manage fiscal year 2016 or prior year funds, as directed by 

law. It has also been reported to Committee staff that, as part of 

this order, requests for routine no-cost extensions of contracts, 

which are critical tools for effective program management, are not 

even being considered by the agency. 

GTI is currently leading or participating in several active and 

announced ARPA–E projects. So to the best of your knowledge, how 

has this no-contract action impacted the work you do or what you 

need to move forward in terms of research? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Thank you for the question. We had received notification of an award through the refuel program back in the fall, 

and that particular project has not been contracted yet, so it’s been 

delayed. We go through a period of negotiation with Contracting 

Officer and the Program Director, and it’s—you know, it’s clearly 

in DOE’s court now before that contract is initiated. 

Mr. TONKO. Is such an order unusual in your experience? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. It’s not unusual to have delays when there is an 

administration change. This one seems to have gone on, you know, 

a little bit longer than typical. 

Mr. TONKO. And in regard to the new contract action—— 
66 

Mr. JOHNSTON. I’m not sure of the no-contract action. I just kind 

of look at our internal process and see that, you know, an award 

was made and it’s—you know, it’s 8 months into, you know, the notification and we still don’t have a contract. 

Mr. TONKO. Beyond ARPA–E, have you encountered similar 

issues in working with or receiving funding from other DOE programs within the last few months? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Have we received others? 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. And such as? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. In the Fossil Energy Office we have a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle project that’s a large project with other partners through the Fossil Energy and NETL. 

Mr. TONKO. So what impact will that have? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Of getting that project? Well, we just kicked the 

project off and so, you know, our teams are now fully engaged in 

delivering that project, and it’s a team of different research institutes and other researchers. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I’ll yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, sir. 

The gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the Chair. I thank the witnesses. 

I’m going to be confining my questions to shale oil. In California 

we’re very concerned about groundwater. We have a limited 

amount of it. We have a limited amount of rain. What are the best 

ways to minimize contamination of groundwater in the shale process, Mr. Johnston? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. So as far as groundwater, I think it’s all about 

surface retention. There’s, you know—the actual hydraulic fracturing happens so far between—you know, below the groundwater 

table—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. —that there’s really, you know, infinitesimally 

small risk that could ever happen unless you had a surface casing 

issue. But really, you’re probably much more limited to surface 

type of contamination to groundwater. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Surface—— 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Spills or something of that—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. I’m not quite sure I’m convinced, but I’ve 

heard that before so I will go with that for now. What about— 

what’s the best way to minimize leakage of methane into the atmosphere from the fracking process? Or are you the right person 

to ask that question? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. I’m certainly—I’ve been around—I was on my 

first frack job in 1985, so I’ve been around it for a little bit. So fracturing from the—or methane emissions from the hydraulic fracturing process are typically lower than they are from actually conventional gas production. As with anything, you know, I think operators want to keep as much of the product as they can. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. The real significant points of the process that 

have more—are more apt to leak methane would be through the 

flow back process. And you can have green completions where you 
67 

actually capture the methane through that process, in the gas processing process as well. So—and sometimes in storage—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So would regulations be the way to encourage 

companies to use that technology? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. What I see that’s been very effective today is 

when policymakers, environmental NGOs, and industry can come 

together and have a discussion and develop, you know, policy 

around that. I look at Colorado, for example. They have what I 

would consider to be a great case study of how you address methane reductions and a methane target within a state. And then, you 

know, there’s technology—Senator Tanaka—or Congressman Tanaka mentioned ARPA–E. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. There’s a lot of new technology actually coming 

out of the ARPA–E monitoring—monitor program that will be there 

for the commercial sector to bring into account so a lot more monitoring of more remote sites on the horizon. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Dimmig, do you agree that environmentalists, industry, and policymakers come together to find solutions? 

Mr. DIMMIG. I do. I do. We work quite extensively with NGOs to 

try to educate them about what we’re doing and learn from them 

about where their concerns are and figure out how we can address 

those. Methane emissions is one of those areas. And from our conversations and where we see things with monitoring, many of these 

emissions issues are very easily addressed. But we have that conversation on the—very regularly with NGOs and policymakers. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Good to hear. Mr. Johnston, again, concerning wastewater, there’s a significant and growing concern 

about the wastewater injection back underground causing earthquakes and other sorts of problems. Would it be feasible to require 

fracking operations to clean up the wastewater so that it can be usable if not potable? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. I think it’s—in some instances it’s more of a market question because they can dispose of this water so inexpensively, and specifically in the—and what you’ve seen in Oklahoma 

and some of the other areas. It’s actually not from shale where a 

lot of this water is being produced. It’s from the Mississippi lime 

formation and that’s what—and that—a lot of that deep-water injection has caused some of the induced seismicity in the Arbuckle 

formation there. They seem to be able to manage that pretty well 

as a reduce the amount. 

You know, we’re constantly looking for technology and innovations that make that decision very easy for operators to recycle as 

much of the water and to clean it up as—and reuse. So that’s a big 

priority for GTI. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, I’ll go ahead and 

yield back and let you terminate the hearing if you wish. 

Chairman WEBER. Actually, we’re—I think we’re going to do a 

second round of questions if you have more, Jerry, so hang in 

there. 

Gosh, where do I start? Well, let me do it this way. Mr. Johnston, 

I’ll start with you. What policies could Congress and DOE implement to encourage more industry-led development—research and 

development efforts? Are there existing—in other words, what poli-
68 

cies could we implement, more industry-led research. You talked 

about being a roughneck basically back in ’85. Is that what you 

said? Okay. So you’ve watched this industry develop. So how do we 

get industry more involved? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, one of the reasons I wanted to highlight the 

project that we have today is just that. I mean, how—I mean, 

that’s tremendous leverage. It’s working on a big problem, and it 

takes lots of different stakeholders to come together and solve the 

problem. So I think if you set out more grand challenges that can 

really have an impact for consumers, for industry, for the government to be able to point to that impact that they’re making, I think 

that’s the way to do it. 

That’s one thing I really like about, you know, even the ARPA– 

E model is they put big stakes in the ground and you have to innovate to those, so not be prescriptive but put big opportunities out 

there and let innovators and in the industry come together to try 

to solve those. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Mr. Dimmig, I want to come to you offline afterwards. I’m very interested—you know, I own an air conditioning company, furnaces. We’re about 80 percent efficient, so natural gas, about 20 percent of the heat and energy goes out the roof 

through the vent, and I’m curious about how exactly you all intend 

to get them to zero emissions. 

But I want to come to the doctor here. When you talk about 

those kinds of measuring—or maybe it’s Mr. Brower, I’m not sure 

or both of you—measuring—being able to measure abilities of pipelines subsea. You talked about ROVs, unmanned ROVs, subsea, 

acting like human capabilities—I think it was you—where you can 

measure that pressure differential or pressure change. My question 

is would—could that be applied downhole when that drilling is 

happening onsite? When you’ve got a wildcat or a rig going, are you 

able to measure pressure on those kinds of downhole or is that just 

out of the question? 

Dr. KRISHNAMOORTI. Measuring anything downhole while drilling 

is extremely difficult. The head of the bit is a real challenge. But 

there are technology solutions that are coming through right now 

that are likely to transform that. One is through smart fluids, putting fluids that can actually measure ahead of the bit has become 

a way to control fluid loss. The other is looking at acoustic signals 

that are able to look beyond the drill noise and be able to actually 

tell what’s going on in the head of the bit. And those are coming 

along. In perhaps 3 to five years those technologies will be mature. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Well, if you can shorten that, we can 

get you more money. I’m just saying. 

Mr. Brower, would you agree with that? 

Dr. BROWER. Yes, I agree with shortening it, too. 

Chairman WEBER. I figured you’d like that. 

Dr. BROWER. Yes, the faster the better. Downhole measurements 

like differential pressure in downhole is like the Holy Grail of 

measurements in that arena. It’s very difficult to get. Right after 

the Macondo incident, I was asked by BP to participate on one of 

their steering group, and that was one of the items that we addressed. 
69 

There—that there is ways and there are ways to do downhole 

monitoring. As the doctor said, it’s extremely difficult. We have certain monitoring methods that we use and are continuing to further 

develop that are used in the deep-water area that we are now 

starting to put into downhole operations. And so I think in the next 

little—you know, in the next few years that it will be very doable 

to get those differential pressure measurements—— 

Chairman WEBER. Recently, I heard GE’s plant—they would 

build blowout preventers that are megatons and they use redundancy in putting those on the floor of the ocean, for example. So 

it’s a very interesting thing that we can monitor that. 

But, Doctor, I want to come back to you. Mr. McNerney from 

California had some questions about the water issue. Would you 

like to further expand on that? Do you want some more time? 

Dr. KRISHNAMOORTI. Sure. So there are some very interesting 

technologies that are in place that are allowing for the use of geothermal energy to clean up the water. These are being done 

through nanotechnology. There is a startup company from the University of Houston—— 

Chairman WEBER. Geothermal onsite? 

Dr. KRISHNAMOORTI. Onsite. So they’re able to bring—not use 

fossil energy but use geothermal energy to clean up water. This is 

a nanotechnology company called Wave. They have got—they’ve developed these materials that can pull out most of the contaminants 

that are there and make the water as good as potable water. And 

that’s the kind of thing—even though you can clean it up, the idea 

is to reuse and recycle that water so that it can be used for refracking or for other fracturing operations. 

Those—I think that’s an opportunity where the challenge has 

been there. These are technologies that have been developed for 

other applications such as in the developing world where clean potable water has been a challenge, and those are being brought to 

bear on the oil and gas industry. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Doctor. I’m going to yield my time 

and go to Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is, 

again, for Mr. Dimmig. I know that NET Power intends to use the 

captured carbon dioxide for EOR. If carbon capture technologies 

are expanded widely across the market, will the capacity for additional CO2 EOR meet the influx of carbon dioxide that will be 

available or would the there be a market saturation? 

Mr. DIMMIG. In most of the analyses we’ve seen are that there’s 

a huge opportunity for CO2-based enhanced oil recovery, and that 

opportunity can absorb the carbon emissions from really gigawatts 

of power plants. So there’s a study by Advanced Resources International that argues there are 100—about 100 billion barrels of 

next-generation CO2 EOR barrels recoverable, economically recoverable, and I think those—to recover that oil would require 33 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which is approximately I think—it was 

260 or 280 gigawatts of natural gas plants over a 35-year life. 

Mr. VEASEY. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. Johnston, to many, the idea of using carbon captured dioxide 

to extract additional greenhouse gas emitting resources—in this 

case oil—seems to run counter to the purpose of capturing carbon 
70 

dioxide in the first place. Can you explain why CO2 EOR—how that 

benefits the climate? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, currently, you know, most—a lot of the 

EOR operations come from natural—naturally occurring so it’s 

mined basically. It’s drilled for to produce the CO2. And if you take 

anthropogenic CO2 from power plants or other industry and you 

reuse that in an EOR application, you’re actually sinking that and 

it becomes a miscible fluid. It helps, you know, bring up that tertiary produced oil that you can’t extract today. 

So I think IEA did a study where they’re looking at if all the potential EOR applications that are technically recovery were done, 

there would be like a 63 percent carbon reduction from using manmade CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. 

Mr. VEASEY. Amazing. So in that same context can you explain 

what a carbon advantage barrel of oil actually means? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. I would have to infer that it’s something on that, 

you know, guideline. I’m not really dialed into that. But it—I think 

it has to do with using the manmade CO2 to bring that oil to bear 

to the market. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. Do you have an estimate of how much private 

industry invests in R&D into new technologies annually compared 

with the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Are you talking about across the value chain—— 

Mr. VEASEY. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. —of oil and gas? I mean it’s orders of magnitude 

more than what DOE would put in. I mean, because the Fossil Energy Office has put 600—roughly $600 million a year. I think, you 

know, there—it’d be orders of magnitude more by industry, you 

know, across—are you just talking about the United States? Even 

it’s at least an order of magnitude, probably higher. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. That would be interesting to have—to see 

those numbers. Would the government best fulfill its obligation to 

the public by pursuing more efficient extraction methods and technologies or by pursuing more effective environmental protections? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Could you repeat that? I’m sorry. 

Mr. VEASEY. Yes, absolutely. Would the government best fulfill 

its obligations to the public by pursuing more efficient extraction 

methods and technologies or by pursuing a more effective environmental protection policy? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, you know, those things are so closely coupled, and I don’t think people realize that or a lot of people, so— 

and as I pointed out in my testimony, the more you’re driving that 

efficiency, the more you’re reducing the environmental impacts and 

the community impacts on top of that, which is very important to 

people. So I think they are much more tightly linked and it’s not 

an either/or, and I think that’s the conversation we should be having more. 

Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Dimmig, do you—it looked like you wanted—did 

you want to comment on that? Okay. All right. No, thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. He wasn’t going to touch that with a 10-foot 

drill stem. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the Chairman again. 
71 

You know, shale revolution really has changed our country’s energy outlook. In 2007 we were talking about running out of oil and 

prices and all, and now we have oil. We’re talking about exporting 

natural gas. But shale has a bad rap. I mean, it does. If you look 

at the State of Maryland, didn’t they just pass a law that would 

forbid fracking? I mean, states, even Oklahoma, there’s a lot of concern out there about shale. 

So what can we do? Is it more government regulation? Is it just 

improving technology? I mean, I’m at a little bit of a loss here. How 

do we change that image of fracking as a nasty, polluting, earthquake-causing business? 

Mr. DIMMIG. Sure, Professor. 

Dr. KRISHNAMOORTI. So I direct you to my testimony. There is a 

report that the Academy of Medicine, Engineering, Science, and 

Technology at the State of Texas is creating is led by one of our 

UH faculty members Christine Economides. She’s a National Academy of Engineers member. They have looked at all of the different 

aspects of shale gas, and this is the technology, the water, the infrastructure, and there are best practices in place that can be put 

in play that will ensure that this can be done safely, can be done 

economically, and can be done in a way that actually minimizes environmental and infrastructure damage. And I think those are the 

best practices that have been established. It’s been about 10, 12 

years of the industry working really hard to do it rights. 

And I think even though there has been a lot of publicity about 

the ills of shale gas and the unconventional resources, I think that 

this is a resource that, if managed right and if done right, can be 

an incredible resource for all of us. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I mean, you talk about best practices, 

okay, but it just takes one or two bad players to give the whole industry a bad rap. And, I mean, is it going to take additional government regulation or enforcement? I mean, how are we going to 

make sure that the industry follows those best practices? 

Dr. KRISHNAMOORTI. So the challenge is how distributed the resources and how many operations that are continuously being developed or drilled and production. And so to try and do this by just 

simply regulatory oversight is a mistake. This has to be a partnership with the industry and with best practices being put in place 

and where the effectiveness is monitored by the industry. It cannot 

be monitored by regulatory agencies. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I don’t quite buy that. I mean, that’s like saying 

you’re going to have the financial industry regulate itself. No, that 

doesn’t work. 

Mr. Johnston, did you want to chime in here? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. I do think that having un-polarized conversations 

would be a good start. And I don’t know who is the facilitator—— 

Chairman WEBER. Yes, we’ll get right on that here in Congress. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, exactly. I wasn’t going to bring that up. But 

anyway—but, I mean, that would be a huge start, just to bring the 

NGOs, industry, and policymakers together to really—because we 

have an unprecedented opportunity. You know, you talk about in 

our country going to—being an exporter of hydrocarbons and, you 

know, ten years ago we were talking about building LNG import 

terminals and, you know—— 
72 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Now we want to know how to make them export 

terminals. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. But, I mean, the thing is even if the United 

States—all the players in the United States are good, you know, 

angels and they don’t ever—they follow best practices, then we’re— 

there’s other countries in other parts of the world that are going 

to take up this technology and they’re going to be bad players. So, 

I mean, we still have a huge challenge in terms of our leadership 

and in terms of our example on how we do this. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Fracking is not a good, you know, name, 

right, anywhere you look, and it’s painted with a broad brush—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. —whether it’s actually the culprit or not. And I 

don’t know how you redirect that conversation, but, you know, it’s 

been around since 1947. It’s not—it’s—and, you know, I don’t know 

how you change the conversation, but that’s really what needs to 

happen. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I mean, as a tree hugger, I want to see more renewables and maybe more nuclear, but we can’t just turn off. And 

so we’re going to have to rely on fracking, and we want it to be 

as clean and as safe as possible. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, there’s ways to—you know, there are best 

practices and I think there are commonsensical ways to address 

the issues that are out there. Like I said, I pointed to Colorado in 

the case of methane emissions. That’s a great case study and then 

how you take that from there. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to 

yield back to you. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Well, now that we have fixed all those 

problems, I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. Jerry, thank you for 

your difficult questions, too. I mean, that’s a lot of frank discussion. 

I appreciate that. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from the members. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ