U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–754 PDF 2012

RHETORIC V. REALITY, PART II: ASSESSING THE 

IMPACT OF NEW FEDERAL RED TAPE ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND AMERICAN ENERGY 

INDEPENDENCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION 

POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND 

PROCUREMENT REFORM 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 31, 2012 

Serial No. 112–148 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS AND PROCUREMENT REFORM

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma, Chairman 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 31, 2012 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Lori Wrotenberry, Director, Oil and Gas Conservation Division, Oklahoma Corporation Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

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

Mr. Michael McKee, County Commissioner, Uintah County 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Mr. Robert Howarth, Director, Agriculture, Energy and Environment Program, Cornell University 

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

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

Mr. Michael Krancer, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection 

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

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

Ms. Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 69 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 71 

Mr. Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 79 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 81 

APPENDIX 

The Honorable James Lankford, A Member of Congress from the State of 

Oklahoma, Opening statement ........................................................................... 94 

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, A Member of Congress from the State 

of Virginia, Written statement ............................................................................ 97 

Testimony for the record from Clean Water Action .............................................. 99 

National Congress of American Indians, Re: Tribal Consultation on BLM 

Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations ...................................................................... 100 

National Congress of American Indians, Title: Seeking Meaningful Tribal 

Consultation on the Bureau of Land Management’s Proposed Hydraulic 

Fracturing Regulations ........................................................................................ 102 

National Congress of American Indians, Re: Request for Consultation on 

BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations ............................................................ 104 

Letter from Henry A. Waxman, A Member of Congress from the State of 

California to Chairman Lankford and Ranking Member Connolly ................. 105 

Statement of Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ................................................... 108 

Addendum to the testimony of Robert W. Howarth, Ph.D. .................................. 112 

Methane Emissions from Natural Gass Systems .................................................. 114 

Letter to The Honorable Ken Salazar, Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior from Matthew H. Mead, Governor of The State of Wyoming .. 127 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, A Member of Congress from the State 

of Maryland, Opening statement ........................................................................ 129 

News from Bloomberg, EPA Says water near Pennsylvania frack site safe 

to drink, by Mark Drajem on May 11, 2012 ...................................................... 131 

(1) 

RHETORIC V. REALITY, PART II: ASSESSING 

THE IMPACT OF NEW FEDERAL RED TAPE 

ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

Thursday, May 31, 2012, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY, 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND PROCUREMENT

REFORM, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m. in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable James 

Lankford [chairman of the subcommittee], presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lankford, Connolly, Kelly, Farenthold, 

Meehan and Labrador. 

Staff Present: Alexia Ardolina, Majority Assistant Clerk; Molly 

Boyl, Majority Parliamentarian; Joseph A. Brazauskas, Majority 

Counsel; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of Member Services 

and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Majority Chief Clerk; 

Ryan M. Hambleton, Majority Professional Staff Member; Ryan 

Little, Majority Professional Staff Member; Mark D. Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; Kristina M. Moore, Majority Senior Counsel; Laura L. Rush, Majority Deputy Chief Clerk; Jaron Bourke, 

Minority Director of Administration; Ashley Etienne, Minority Director of Communications; Chris Knauer, Minority Senior Investigator; William Miles, Minority Professional Staff Member; Safiya 

Simmons, Minority Press Secretary; and Cecelia Thomas, Minority 

Counsel. 

Mr. LANKFORD. The Committee will come to order. 

This is a hearing on ‘‘Rhetoric v. Reality,’’ the second part in a 

series today. We did an earlier one with the full committee this 

morning. This is ‘‘Assessing the Impact of New Federal Red Tape 

on Hydraulic Fracturing and American Energy Independence.’’ 

This is part of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. As a subcommittee, we exist to secure two fundamental 

principles. First, Americans have the right to know the money 

Washington takes from them is well spent and second, Americans 

deserve and efficient and effective government that works for them. 

Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right 

to know what they get from their government. 

2 

We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to 

bring the facts to the American people and bring them genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is our mission. 

As we heard this morning, after years of worry about America’s 

supply of oil and gas, the industry has located significant new 

areas to explore energy and the results have been quite remarkable. In the last quarter, 58 percent of the oil we used in America 

came from America; 79 percent of the oil we used came from North 

America. The United States is currently in a tremendous American 

energy renaissance. 

Through hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, domestic oil 

and gas reserves have the potential to create millions of new jobs 

and to finally make the United States energy independent. 

Increased energy exploration and production is one of the keys 

to turning our economy around and putting Americans back to 

work. It is no coincidence that States with low unemployment rates 

are high in energy production. While technology has greatly increased the ability to find new oil and gas, this morning we learned 

and heard testimony in the full committee about the many ways 

the Administration has stood in the way of American energy independence by slowing down additional production of coal, oil and 

natural gas. Under the Obama Administration, the red tape and 

endless government studies have discouraged new Federal permitting. 

The energy renaissance we heard of today is taking place almost 

exclusively on private lands. We have a chart to note how 96 percent of the new production is occurring on private lands rather 

than on public land. That is a loss of royalties and a loss of leases 

to the American taxpayers. 

Based on new regulations issued just last month by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Land Management, it 

appears this trend of under utilization of Federal lands will continue and may also be pushed and spread into private lands as 

well. 

The Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Land 

Management just proposed sweeping regulations of hydraulic fracturing on Federal and Indian lands that duplicate State regulations 

and threaten the decades old primacy relationship of State regulations. 

In proposing the rules, the BLM did not assert the Federal Government is in any better position to regulate fracturing than the 

States and BLM did not claim the States are not doing a good job. 

The BLM merely asserts that they are proposing the regulation on 

the basis of public concern. Ironically, this public concern has arguably been fostered by the EPA. 

In a multi-pronged attack on the industry, the EPA has publicly 

lambasted specific energy producers in fracturing locations for alleged problems but later, the EPA has only whispered corrections 

when science proved the initial EPA assertion invalid. This all happened while continuing to issue a stream of regulations affecting 

hydraulic fracturing before the current Federally-mandated study 

had even been completed. 

EPA Administrator Jackson stated under oath before this committee, ‘‘There is not a single documented case where hydraulic 

3 

fracturing has demonstrably contaminated groundwater.’’ That has 

not stopped EPA and BLM from creating a series of new Federal 

regulations. 

This positive report and this record was due in part to the physics. There is another chart I want to put up just to show and we 

will put into the record as well. Fracking activity takes place a mile 

and sometimes well more than a mile below the aquifer line and 

through several layers of rock, I might add. 

It also leads to an effective and comprehensive State regulatory 

regime. Regulators and energy resource States like Oklahoma and 

my State, Pennsylvania, Utah, North Dakota and Texas work 

closely with all interested parties, industry and environmental 

alike, to develop a regulatory regime that is responsive to advancements in industry while protecting the environment at the same 

time. 

No one—I repeat, no one cares more about the water resources 

of Oklahoma than Oklahomans and the people who live there. The 

assumption that Federal regulators from other States understand 

the geologic strata and energy process better than State enforcement is beyond credible. 

I also do not accept the assumption that local regulators cannot 

be trusted because they have political pressures that would discourage enforcement but Federal regulators have only pure motives 

and no political agenda. Look no further than the former EPA Region VI Administrator who stepped down in my region after it was 

revealed that he pursued and trained his staff in a strategy of crucifixion against oil and gas companies to keep the industry in line. 

This astonishing statement reveals that some in the EPA, see people in my district as the enemy and they assume their job is to control them instead of serving the public. 

State regulators work closely with the Groundwater Protection 

Council to develop a website known as ‘‘Frack Focus’’ which enables disclosure of fracking fluids while protecting trade secret information. State regulators also work with STRONGER, the State 

Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, which 

is funded in part by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy. 

STRONGER is comprised of all interested parties, conducts exhaustive reviews of State regulation of hydraulic fracturing, and 

comparing the existing regulations to a set of hydraulic fracturing 

guidelines unanimously adopted in 2010. If the State falls short, 

they work with STRONGER to get them back up to code. 

Even so, EPA is moving forward with the confusing Diesel Fuels 

Guidance which turns the Safe Drinking Water Act on its head. In 

2005, Congress specifically exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act because it is an illfitted regulatory framework. Congress granted EPA the authority 

to regulate hydraulic fracturing in a very narrow circumstance 

when diesel fuels were used. 

That simple statement seems very narrow and clear but the EPA 

appears to be attempting an end run around the statute by brazenly redefining diesel fuels to include virtually any petroleum 

product. This new regulatory overreach now threatens the entire 

system of State regulatory primacy and the Safe Drinking Water 

Act. 

4 

We can have safe energy exploration and production overseen by 

States and local authorities. There is a role for the EPA but I am 

very skeptical that thousands of wells and many different types of 

rock and soil conditions across the country can be overseen from 

Washington better than by State leaders who know the people and 

the land. 

We are so close to energy independence. This is the moment 

when we will finally solve a decades old problem or the Federal 

Government will get in the way and slow or halt our economic future. Today is the pursuit of answers and clarity of the direction 

of the EPA and the Bureau of Land Management to determine the 

goal of an Administration who has stated they are for all of the 

above energy. 

With that, I recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. 

Connolly, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

I note that votes are occurring now, so I assume right after my 

statement we will probably go vote. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair. 

I respect the Chair and I thank him for holding this hearing. Our 

philosophies could not be more different. I disagree with almost everything the Chairman has just said. 

Frankly, the Republican rhetoric in this body has been that the 

hob nail boot of government regulation that has stifled the ability 

for the United States to achieve anything like energy independence, despite the fact that with EPA regulation and other regulation, our production of oil, gas and fossil fuels is going up, not 

down. 

We are on a trajectory to match Saudi production, the number 

one producer in the world. We are on a trajectory to come close to 

eliminating our dependence on foreign oil entirely. Somehow that 

happened in a robust regulatory environment. Somehow that happened with this President and his support for having everything on 

the table, including fracturing. 

That does not mean there aren’t legitimate questions to be answered so that we can move forward with fracturing in an environmentally safe and humanly safe and healthy way. Those questions 

are not to be dismissed. 

The idea that we are going to pit State regulators against Federal regulators, and one is good and one is bad, is to me to invite 

serious regression in America. The truth of the matter is Federal 

regulation seemed to be required by Republicans and Democrats 

not so long ago precisely because of the failure at the local level— 

lack of resources, lack of will, sometimes political interference. 

Yes, gas and oil producing States sometimes skirted serious regulations in the name of economic advancement—understandable but 

not always in the public interest or a competing public interest. 

I say we need reasonable regulation. We can all debate what reasonable is but the idea that we don’t need any regulation at the 

Federal level at all, especially on something as potentially serious 

to environmental safety and human health as fracturing, is a notion I reject. I believe most Americans will reject it. 

5 

We have evidence of toxic chemicals that are involved in the fracturing process; we have evidence of seismic events that may have 

been triggered by some of that process. That is not a reason to say 

absolutely no to fracturing. It is a reason to try to be able to ensure 

the public that its interests are also being protected as we try to 

accelerate U.S. independence when it comes to fossil fuels. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony but I want to make very 

clear my sharp difference with the statements made by the Chairman here today. There couldn’t be a more profound philosophical 

difference in our approach in this Congress to the subject. 

With that, I thank the Chair. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

All the members will have seven days to submit opening statements and extraneous materials for the record. 

When you mentioned evidence of contamination of water sources, 

Mr. Connolly, I would like to have any evidence you have to back 

that up because the EPA Administrator actually told us that she 

was not aware of any contamination of groundwater at this point. 

Any evidence you may know of on that point would help the record 

as well. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Certainly. I would remind the Chairman, the Energy and Commerce staff conducted a study of chemicals used in 

fracturing and found at least 29 toxins including carcinogens such 

as benzene, napolene and acrylomide. The study found that at least 

10.2 million of gallons of fracturing fluid contained at least one 

known carcinogen. I would be glad to submit the study for the 

record. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Would not have a problem with the carcinogens 

being there in that. I understand that is used. The issue is, is it 

getting into the drinking water. 

I would like to recognize my colleague from Utah, Mr. Bishop, to 

introduce one of his constituents who will sit on our panel today. 

We will introduce the panel but actually get into your testimony as 

soon as we come back from votes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Apparently you have had one speech for and one against. Do I 

get to do the tie breaking vote here? 

Mr. LANKFORD. Let us do an introduction. How about that? 

Mr. BISHOP. That is okay. You win anyway, Mr. Chairman. 

I do wish to introduce Mr. McKee, who is going to be testifying 

today probably in a half hour or so. He is the Uintah County Chairman in my State of Utah. He has been the Chairman since 2002. 

He is the Chairman of the Commission at this time—close enough. 

The importance of Uintah County is very simple—50 percent of 

all the jobs in that particular county are tied up with the extraction industry; 65 percent of all of the natural gas that is produced 

in Utah comes from this particular county. This is somebody who 

can give you expert testimony as somebody who lives it and knows 

who is on there. 

He can testify that even though regulations are established to 

solve problems, sometimes when you actually establish regulation 

when there is no problem, the usual result is some kind of overreach in coming up with an abstract that does not fit the reality 

that happens to be there at the time. 

6 

I am appreciative of you giving close attention to his testimony 

because he can tell you about this particular issue of fracking from 

somebody who does not have to take a four hour airplane flight 

through three time zones to see the situation but someone who actually lives it every day with his constituency. 

With that, I welcome him here and I appreciate this committee 

taking on this important topic because fracking is a significant 

issue for the State and it is a significant issue for the future of the 

Federal Government. I appreciate your bringing expert witnesses 

like Commissioner McKee here as well. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Let me introduce the other three panelists. Ms. Lori Wrotenbery 

is Director, Oil and Gas Conservation Division, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, also someone he knows well. We have done hydraulic fracking in Oklahoma since the 1940s, so this is not new, 

though I assume Ms. Wrotenbery has not overseen it since the 

1940s. We are very, very familiar with over 100,000 fracks in Oklahoma alone. It is something we are very, very familiar with. 

Next we have Robert Howarth, PhD, Director, Agriculture, Energy and Environment Program, Cornell University. Thank you for 

being here as well. We also have Mr. Michael Krancer, is on a return engagement. He was on the panel at the full hearing this 

morning. Thank you for staying over. He is Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

Obviously there is a lot going on and this is a new thing in Pennsylvania compared to where we are in Oklahoma where we have 

done fracking since the 1940s. He will bring a lot of insight on how 

Pennsylvania is continuing to handle the State regulatory environment. 

With that introduction, we will start with Ms. Wrotenbery’s testimony as soon as we get back. We have three votes in this series. 

We will get them done as quickly as we can. We will be back and 

reconvene at that time. 

With that, we stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. LANKFORD. We had to pause as we did votes. I think the 

next series of votes is around 5:30 p.m., so we will be halfway done 

at that point, right? 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses do need to be sworn 

before they testify. Please stand and raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Mr. LANKFORD. May the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. 

In order to allow time for discussion, I would like you to limit 

your testimony to five minutes. I think most of you have been 

around this before, Mr. Krancer obviously just a few hours ago on 

this. You will see a clock in front of you to give you a quick countdown. Just be as close to that as you possibly can. 

Ms. Wrotenbery, you may begin. 

7 

STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES 

STATEMENT OF LORI WROTENBERY 

Ms. WROTENBERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Connolly and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk to you about State regulatory programs for hydraulic fracturing. 

I am the Oil and Gas Director in the State of Oklahoma. I am 

the Director of the Oil and Gas Conservation Division of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. We are the agency that regulates 

oil and gas drilling and production operations in the State of Oklahoma. I am also here talking today as a member of the board of 

STRONGER. I am currently serving as Chairman of that board 

and a member of the Board of the Groundwater Protection Council 

as well. 

I am going to talk a bit about a couple of the programs those organizations have underway that are addressing hydraulic fracturing issues. I do want to emphasize though how important it is 

for everyone to understand that States do regulate hydraulic fracturing. Just how they go about regulating hydraulic fracturing is 

documented in the STRONGER report that I will describe in a little more detail. 

These programs the States administer have been around for 

many years. They are comprehensive, are continually improving 

and I think you can summarize them by saying they are strong, 

they are responsive, they are flexible and they are adaptive. For all 

those reasons, I believe they are effective in ensuring hydraulic 

fracturing operations are conducted safely. 

The States do face challenges. Many of those challenges are associated with the development of new technologies, the use of hydraulic fracturing in different places and in different ways than it 

has been used in the past. There is no doubt that there are issues 

associated with hydraulic fracturing in today’s environment. I will 

say the nature of those challenges varies from State to State. I can 

also say States are acting to address those issues in a way that is 

fitting to their specific circumstances. 

I will give you an example. In Oklahoma, the ramp up in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing activity within the last decade occurred during a period of severe drought. We did face some 

serious issues about the sources of water for hydraulic fracturing 

operations. We also needed to do what we could to encourage recycling of the flowback waters from hydraulic fracturing operations 

to minimize the demand on our freshwater resources. 

For that reason, we had to take another look at our regulations 

for the management of produced waters in oil and gas operations. 

For many years, we had prohibited basically pits that we used to 

store produced waters. Those had been phased out decades ago. 

Now we were in a situation where we needed to accommodate the 

temporary storage of flowback waters in pits so that water could 

be used in future hydraulic fracturing operations and we could save 

our freshwater resources. 

To address the issue, the Corporation Commission worked with 

the industry and other interested parties to develop new rules for 

8 

the large pits that were used to store flowback waters on a temporary basis so they could be reused and recycled. 

There are more examples from other States about what issues 

they face and how they have addressed those issues in the 

STRONGER reports. I will just refer you to those. STRONGER, as 

the Chairman said, is a stakeholder process. The board of 

STRONGER, all of the guideline development workgroups, all of 

the review teams that STRONGER puts together are stakeholder 

bodies that include representatives of State regulatory programs, 

industry and environmental organizations. 

In the last few years, STRONGER has developed guidelines for 

State hydraulic fracturing regulations and has conducted reviews 

of State hydraulic fracturing programs. We have done these reviews in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Colorado and 

Arkansas. We are open to doing reviews in other States as they 

volunteer. 

What the guidelines and reviews do is help the States benchmark their regulatory programs and identify areas for improvement. The process works. If you look back over the history of 

STRONGER, it does do follow up reviews to see how States have 

responded to the recommendations they make and over time, when 

STRONGER has done follow up reviews, we have seen that fully 

75 percent of the recommendations have already been met at the 

time of the follow up reviews and others were in process. The 

States do take these reviews seriously. 

In Oklahoma, for instance, received some recommendations 

which were welcome to us about how we could strengthen our program under the hydraulic fracturing guidelines that STRONGER 

put together. We amended a couple of our rules, we have also 

worked with our legislature and our governor to address some of 

the funding and staffing issues that arose in recent years, especially during the budget crisis we have all been struggling through. 

We have taken those recommendations from the STRONGER review seriously and have acted to address those recommendations. 

We also recently adopted a chemical disclosure rule. I wanted to 

talk about FracFocus. FracFocus is another example of what the 

States are accomplishing by working together and with the stakeholders to address the issues that have arisen. FracFocus was put 

together in a very short time frame by the Groundwater Protection 

Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, two 

organizations that represent the oil and gas producing States. The 

Groundwater Protection Council includes the Drinking Water Program administrators as well. 

Since that system went into effect in April 2011, over 18,000 

wells have been posted to that site with full information about the 

chemical constituents of the frack fluids. The new rule in Oklahoma is similar to rules that have been adopted in six or seven 

other States. The rule will require the posting of chemical information on hydraulic fracturing operations in Oklahoma to the 

FracFocus website. We are trying to make sure that information is 

available to the public. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Wrotenbery follows:] 

9 


Insert offset folio 1 here 74754.001
10 


Insert offset folio 2 here 74754.002
11 


Insert offset folio 3 here 74754.003
12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 74754.004
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 74754.005
14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 74754.006
15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 74754.007
16 


Insert offset folio 8 here 74754.008
17 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. McKee. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MCKEE 

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

I appreciate the opportunity to take a couple of minutes on this. 

My name is Michael McKee. I am County Commissioner in 

Uintah County, Utah. My primary focus over the year as a County 

Commissioner related to public lands issues, natural resources, 

specifically the extractive industry and our natural resource development. 

In Uintah County today, we have approximately 6,000 active oil 

and gas wells. Approximately 65 percent of the natural gas produced in the State of Utah comes from the area where I live in 

Uintah County. The industry has provided many families with very 

good jobs with above average paying salaries. It is a way of life because 50 percent of the jobs and 60 percent of the economy in our 

area does come from the extractive industry. 

I am concerned about over regulation, I am concerned about the 

stifling effect that over reach has on investment in our economy. 

In regards to the new fracking proposals rules, I am concerned that 

the Federal Government is trying to fix something that is not 

broke. It isn’t even limping. 

In my ten years as a county commissioner, I have never heard 

of one valid violation or concern with hydraulic fracturing. This includes the fluids used, the depth, the method of injection or any 

other concern being associated with fracturing. We just do not have 

that problem. 

Hydraulic fracturing is not a new technology but a process that 

has been responsibly used for over 60 years. Hydraulic fracturing 

is a safe, well tested technology that has enabled the U.S. to develop unconventional natural gas and increase reserves to an over 

100 year supply. Fracturing has been performed in over 1 million 

wells with an exemplary safety record—90 percent of the wells utilize hydraulic fracturing. 

Hydraulic drilling and fracturing allows operators to produce ten 

times the amount of energy by drilling fewer than one-tenth the 

number of wells. We are delivering cleaner burning domestic energy and more of it while drilling fewer holes to get to it. 

Regulatory decisions such as hydraulic fracturing are best made 

at the State level and not regulated by a Federal bureaucracy far 

removed from the issue. This is why individual States can better 

tailor their specific needs since they have the experience and understanding of the geology/hydrology infrastructure and other factors unique to each producing basin. 

State regulators understand the needs of the communities they 

regulate much better than a far, removed Federal government and 

also have the specific technical expertise, resources and experience. 

On March 14, 2012, now former BLM Director Bob Abbey testified in the Senate that there has been a shift in oil and gas production to private lands to the east and the south where there is lesser 

amount of Federal mineral estate. We have seen investment from 

18 

public lands to other areas. Part of the concern we have is the shift 

in investment that can happen from this. 

Only 15 percent of my county is privately owned. These decisions 

can have a tremendous effect on the entire west where we have 

vast holdings of public lands. Adding additional burdens to development on Federal lands could have an adverse effect, forcing operators to shift investment away from my State and public land areas 

thus depriving our citizens of needed jobs and income. 

The natural gas industry employs over 600,000 people in the 

United States. According to API, it accounts for nearly 4 million 

jobs and that is more than $385 billion to the national economy. 

Oil and gas royalties on public lands are a significant revenue 

source for the Federal Government, the State of Utah and to the 

counties from where it comes. In 2008, there were over $200 million in mineral lease money collected from my county alone. 

Shale gas and hydraulic fracturing has single handedly turned 

the United States from a nation of declining gas production to one 

of rising production. 

I was approached by tribal attorneys, this is an issue they have 

as well. The oil and gas producing Indian tribes are very much 

against the BLM’s proposed rule. As some members of this subcommittee may be aware, a large portion of the UN&RA Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe rests within the boundaries of Uintah 

County, Utah. 

The Ute Indian Tribe is one of the Nation’s largest oil and natural gas producing Indian tribes. The BLM’s proposed rule would 

severely impact the development of tribal minerals in Uintah 

County. Yet despite this fact, the BLM has failed to comply with 

its legal obligation and duty to consult with impacted Indian tribes. 

BLM’s proposed rule will kill tribal jobs in the oil and gas industry. 

The BLM has failed to work with the Ute Indian Tribe regarding 

the proposed rule. 

In summary, local governments, many mineral producing States 

and affected Indian tribes are all very concerned with this ill-advised, unneeded and redundant rule. 

I would be happy to answer questions. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. McKee follows:] 

19 


Insert offset folio 9 here 74754.009
20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 74754.010
21 


Insert offset folio 11 here 74754.011
22 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you 

I would like to enter into the record, with unanimous consent, a 

letter from the National Congress of American Indians outlining 

some of the things you just said. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. LANKFORD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Without objecting, I would ask for similar courtesy. I ask at this time a response to Mr. Krancer’s testimony this 

morning from our colleague, Mr. Waxman, be entered into the 

record. I also ask that a similar response rebutting Mr. Krancer’s 

characterization of Dr. Howarth’s research from the Sierra Club 

that Mr. Krancer cited this morning also be entered into the record 

at this time. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Without objection. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Howarth. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT HOWARTH 

Mr. HOWARTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Robert Howarth. I have been a tenured member of 

the faculty at Cornell University since 1985. 

I am here today as an individual. I do not represent the University. As are the opinions I express are informed by my research 

conducted at Cornell. 

I have worked on the environmental risk assessment and consequences of environmental pollution, including the effects of oil 

and gas development since the mid-1970s. I was invited today to 

present information on the environmental and public health consequences of hydraulic fracturing. I will try to very briefly do so. 

Hydraulic fracturing is not new as we just heard. The process 

has existed for decades but it has existed on a small scale, using 

very small volumes of water. What is new is the combination of 

high precision directional drilling with high volume hydraulic fracturing. The new combination uses 50 to 100 times more water than 

was ever used in fracturing until a decade or so ago, five million 

gallons or so per well. 

This new technology has indeed opened up new resources, shale 

gas and other unconventional gas. The technology is very, very 

new. I want to stress that. As a result, the science or understanding the consequences is also very, very new. For context, half 

of all the shale gas that has ever been developed in the world has 

been produced in the last three years, so a new technology and the 

science is new. 

In terms of peer review literature on what the environmental 

consequences are, it almost all in the last year. The very first papers were published 14 months ago. The science is new. It is very 

rapidly changing. I will try to give you a sense of that today. 

One issue is surface water pollution. Very briefly, I want to say 

there is good evidence that hydraulic fracturing in this new form 

has contaminated surface waters. One of the major ways is through 

improper waste disposal through sewage treatment plants. The 

City of Pittsburgh had a serious water quality problem from that 

with bromides entering their system. It is now outlawed in Pennsylvania but not outlawed in some other States. We still don’t realVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 29, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74754.TXT APRIL
23 

ly have good alternatives for disposing of the hydraulic waste in 

much of the country. 

Groundwater contamination appears to be a big issue. The 

science behind that is very iffy at the moment. A lot of the information is not publicly available making the science difficult. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency is undertaking a long, detailed 

study on that and I think most scientists would say we should hold 

off and see what they come up with but there is certainly anecdotal 

evidence of this problem. I could talk more about that in questions 

if you like. 

There is excellent evidence of methane contamination from hydraulic fracturing in wells. It is well documented in Pennsylvania. 

Local air pollution is an issue and there are two I will point to. One 

is benzene which is admitted to the atmosphere routinely from hydraulic fracturing. The State of Texas routinely reports values that 

are hazardous, sometimes at near acutely lethal doses. Pennsylvania reports much lower concentrations so far but they are concentrations which, in my opinion, pose a significant cancer risk 

from chronic exposure. 

We have a big problem from the ozone pollution from hydraulic 

fracturing. The methane and other hydrocarbons that are released 

to the atmosphere make ground level ozone pollution. We are seeing large amounts of ozone pollution in the western States where 

it has almost never been seen as a problem before. In the winter 

in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, ozone concentrations are now 

higher than they are in Los Angeles or New York City. This is undoubtedly a direct relation to hydraulic fracturing. 

My own research has been on the role of methane released from 

shale gas and how that affects the greenhouse gas footprint. We 

published the very, very first analysis of that 13 and a half months 

ago. Our conclusion was that because methane is 105 fold more 

powerful as a greenhouse gas over the time period 20 years after 

emission, methane leakage even at small rates is a serious greenhouse gas concern, giving shale gas a larger greenhouse gas footprint than other fossil fuels. I will come back to that in just a 

minute. 

I want to briefly mention one other issue and that is radon in 

gas supplies. Radon is a gas that is carcinogenic, the major exposure of ionizing radiation to the public in the United States currently. Natural gas is already a major root of exposure to getting 

radon into the homes and shale gas, at least from the Marcellus 

shale is far, far richer in radon than conventional natural gas has 

been. This is something I think deserves a lot more attention and 

scrutiny and a lot more study. In my opinion, it poses a significant 

public health risk that has gone under appreciated so far. 

I believe the Federal agencies have a central role in regulating 

oil and gas development generally but also particularly with development of this unconventional oil and gas by high volume hydraulic fracturing. The issues involved are complex, they are new, the 

technologies are new and are continually evolving. 

The scientific issues are difficult. From my experience interacting 

with agencies, scientists and managers in many States and many 

Federal agencies in the last 35 years, I believe most States lack the 

technical expertise to deal with these complex issues. 

24 

Finally, I note that the pollution from unconventional oil and gas 

in water, in air and in pipelines moves across State lines, so there 

is clearly a role for Federal involvement. 

I would like to take a final minute to briefly respond to the written testimony of my fellow witness, Mr. Krancer. The written testimony I heard is very critical of our work on greenhouse gas so I 

would like to set the record straight on that. I have written an addendum to my testimony to do so. 

I would also ask the committee to make a formal part of this 

paper, ‘‘Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Systems,’’ which I 

and many other co-authors wrote for the U.S. National Climate Assessment at the request of the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy Assessment in February in which our work is explicitly compared with all other studies ever done on this topic. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Without objection, we accept that into the record. 

Mr. HOWARTH. The bottom line is that our estimates of methane 

emissions were the first, there have been many estimates since 

then and one of the things we called for was further direct study. 

Most of the information is available only from industry sources and 

it is poorly documented. We called for direct, independent studies 

and they are starting to happen. The first is now being published 

by NOAA and University of Colorado scientists. 

It shows that we are conservative and low—the methane emissions are worse than we said. I would be happy to go into more detail on that work if the committee is interested. 

My time is over. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk 

with you today. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Howarth follows:] 

25 


Insert offset folio 12 here 74754.012
26 


Insert offset folio 13 here 74754.013
27 


Insert offset folio 14 here 74754.014
28 


Insert offset folio 15 here 74754.015
29 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. Krancer. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL KRANCER 

Mr. KRANCER. Thank you and thank you for the opportunity to 

be here. 

I am not sure the last time Washington, D.C. saw a duel out in 

front of the congressional offices but me and my good colleague, 

Bob Howarth, might have to have one after this. 

In all seriousness, we in Pennsylvania have a comprehensive program to regulate what is not a new activity in Pennsylvania, oil 

and gas exploration and hydraulic fracturing. We have been doing 

it for about 60 years. Each State is different. That is the key. Pennsylvania is not the same as Oklahoma, not the same as Texas, not 

even the same as New York necessarily. 

We have regulations regarding well casing and cement for the 

drilling process. We have regulations for water handling and surface water. We have regulations for air impact. We are doing short 

term air impact studies; we are going to do long term impact studies. One of the things just mentioned by Professor Howarth, the 

sewage treatment plants in Pittsburgh, he did say it is now outlawed in Pennsylvania. That is proof in the pudding that the States 

are very capable, agile and know enough about what is going on 

in their backyard to take the appropriate steps. 

My colleague, Ms. Wrotenbery, testified about STRONGER, 

STRONGER did review Pennsylvania regulations in 2010. Those 

regulations were reviewed very well by STRONGER. Just recently, 

SUNY Buffalo in May issued a report that in essence followed up 

on that and brought it current. That report concluded there was a 

compelling case that Pennsylvania’s oversight of oil and gas regulation has been effective. 

We have a brand new statute in Pennsylvania, again proving the 

agility of the State to act and our knowledge of our own State at 

13 which brought on some new requirements regarding setbacks, 

regarding disclosure and we have one of the most forward thinking 

advance disclosure provisions of any State in the Union, for the 

first time ever requiring disclosure to medical professionals. 

I heard what Professor Howarth said about the methane study 

and his criticism of my criticism of it. I just have to note that I will 

have to take a number and get in line for the folks critiquing Professor Howarth’s report. That is part of the academic process and 

that is all fair. That is what we should be doing. 

I do have to take some exception to some of the points. Atmosphere benzene levels near ‘‘some drilling sites’’—what drilling 

sites? They are not mentioned in his testimony. I am not sure what 

he is talking about with respect to chronic exposure and so forth. 

That is a toxicologist and epidemiologist purview. 

The report that there have been several reported contaminations 

of drinking water wells and surface aquifers by frac fluids in Pennsylvania is just not true. That is simply not true. Not even Duke, 

which I have also had issues with the study from Duke, even the 

Duke study drew any connection between any frac fluid being in 

the water in Pennsylvania. 

30 

Let me remind everyone, methane migration has been a creature 

in Pennsylvania for generations and probably been a creature in 

other States as well. Any drilling, if it is not done right, can cause 

contamination or can cause methane migration. That is why in 

Pennsylvania we have our well casing and cementing regulations 

we put into place because we knew what our geology was like and 

we knew what was necessary on the floor. 

I would agree with what Professor Howarth says, that this area 

is complex, it is evolving, it is difficult, but that is actually a reason 

the States should be on top of regulating. The States know how to 

react to these things. It is a proven record in Pennsylvania. We 

know the science in the States. We are not idiots in the States compared to the Federal Government, for example, who knows everything. That is not the way it works. 

I would take a little bit of discussion point with the Ranking 

Member. The way environmental regulation works in this country 

is primarily based on State delegation, States running with the ball 

to regulate environmental matters. In terms of hydraulic fracturing, I talk about it in my testimony, the history is clear. The 

Federal Government has never indicated an interest, any Administration, any Congress, any EPA, in regulating hydraulic fracturing 

until all of a sudden now there is a huge interest to get into it from 

various different aspects. 

That is all borne out in the history of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act, in the bipartisan 2005 Energy Policy Act which did nothing 

more than restate what the longstanding policy had been with respect to the Safe Drinking Water Act’s non-regulation of fracking. 

With that, I will conclude and look forward to questions and 

some more discussion. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Krancer follows:] 

31 


Insert offset folio 16 here 74754.016
32 


Insert offset folio 17 here 74754.017
33 


Insert offset folio 18 here 74754.018
34 


Insert offset folio 19 here 74754.019
35 


Insert offset folio 20 here 74754.020
36 


Insert offset folio 21 here 74754.021
37 


Insert offset folio 22 here 74754.022
38 


Insert offset folio 23 here 74754.023
39 


Insert offset folio 24 here 74754.024
40 


Insert offset folio 25 here 74754.025
41 


Insert offset folio 26 here 74754.026
42 


Insert offset folio 27 here 74754.027
43 


Insert offset folio 28 here 74754.028
44 


Insert offset folio 29 here 74754.029
45 


Insert offset folio 30 here 74754.030
46 


Insert offset folio 31 here 74754.031
47 


Insert offset folio 32 here 74754.032
48 


Insert offset folio 33 here 74754.033
49 


Insert offset folio 34 here 74754.034
50 


Insert offset folio 35 here 74754.035
51 


Insert offset folio 36 here 74754.036
52 


Insert offset folio 37 here 74754.037
53 


Insert offset folio 38 here 74754.038
54 


Insert offset folio 39 here 74754.039
55 


Insert offset folio 40 here 74754.040
56 


Insert offset folio 41 here 74754.041
57 


Insert offset folio 42 here 74754.042
58 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

With that, I yield to myself for just a moment. 

I want to bring in a quick prop. This is shale rock. For those of 

you who are State regulators, you are very aware of it but sometimes we lose track of the fact, when we talk about pulling out oil 

and natural gas from the ground, many people are used to conventional wells where there is a pocket of oil or a pocket of gas. 

The gas or oil is not around this, it is inside of this. How it gets 

pulled out in this process is technology that is impressive in the 

way it is done, to drill down to put a well a mile deep, sometimes 

two miles long then underground through this rock, just like this, 

solid rock, to frac it with water and then pull out of this oil or gas 

is revolutionary. This is why we have such a tremendous supply 

that is coming online, because we are now actually pulling energy 

out of rocks, not out of a pool, not around this, from this. 

It is somewhat revolutionary, I understand that, but it is not 

new in just the past couple of years. Mr. Krancer mentioned as 

well, in 2005, Congress was very specific on this, that EPA had regulatory oversight only if it had diesel fuels in the fracking fluid but 

to leave that back up to the States as well. 

My question is why has this become such an issue, dealing with 

fracking, right now? In the last couple of years, why has there been 

such a rise in so many areas about fracking? I know this is just 

an opinion guess for you. Mr. Howarth? We have to make responses short because we are short on time. 

Mr. HOWARTH. As I stressed in my testimony, the ability to get 

that fantastic resource out of the shale, you are right, it is incredible technology, but it is new technology. It was developed first in 

Texas, somewhat in Oklahoma, in the south areas which are very 

different. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I understand. Right now there has been an incredible shift on it. This has been known for several years, as I 

mentioned, the 2005 legislation. Why right now has there been 

such a rush to it? Has there been some new break through because 

the EPA Administrator has told us repeatedly that they have not 

found from EPA a single site of groundwater contamination from 

hydraulic fracking. 

Mr. HOWARTH. I believe what EPA probably told you was that 

they are not aware of a single case where the action of the fracking 

itself led to water contamination. There are multiple, publicly 

known cases where there was water contamination associated with 

the development of shale gas or other types. 

Mr. LANKFORD. You are talking about from the surface? 

Mr. HOWARTH. No, including from wells. There is a documented 

incidence of at least 1 percent, perhaps up to 6 percent. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Here is what I know typically. There have been 

some very, very public cases of this from EPA in the past year and 

a half where EPA comes out and says we have a major problem, 

we have to take over this area. They begin testing all of those wells 

and it comes back, oh, that was just methane, it is naturally occurring and migrating into an area. That is a chemical already present 

there. 

Most recently on May 11, 2012, in Dimock, Pennsylvania, EPA 

quietly released what was initially a panic to say that frac fluids 

59 

caused all that, they have come back now and said, we were wrong. 

That was not a source of that. There has been quite a shift that 

has occurred. Let me move on to a couple of other areas as well. 

Mr. HORWARTH. The methane contamination is clearly a result of 

the hydraulic fracturing of the shale. The study from Duke University published in the proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences is unambiguous. 

Mr. LANKFORD. If you can pull some of that for us, we would be 

glad to receive that as well, but EPA has disagreed on several of 

those. Methane obviously is a natural occurring substance that 

does move in the ground and does release. 

Is the geology the same in Utah as in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, the same rock, same depth of water, same soils? Are things 

the same under ground in all three of your States? 

Mr. KRANCER. No, absolutely not. They are not the same geologically, topographically, meteorologically, weather, or on the surface. 

On the Duke study, I would take issue with Professor Howarth 

again. The Duke study was very limited and other studies have 

come out, including one from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania 

which seems to lead to another conclusion. 

In your more fundamental question of why all this attention, 

there is a great article about this called Everything You Have 

Heard About Fossil Fuels May Be Wrong, by Michael Lind it’s in 

the New America Foundation. It is all about what he thinks why 

all this attention has grown. It is because natural gas, which used 

to be viewed as maybe a bridge fuel, a fossil fuel that the people 

who don’t like fossil fuel could hold their nose and get through, it 

now could be the fuel of the century. That has caused some cognitive dissidence among some significant interest groups ergo the 

push back. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. McKee, you mentioned in your testimony 

that you have seen and there is a perception there is a shift of investment out of the west to the east. I assume you mean out of 

BLM lands and you have a fear that you are about to lose the potential of getting energy. Is it because you are running out of energy underground in your area? What would be the reason for the 

sense that investment is moving away from your area? 

Mr. MCKEE. First of all, there is a tremendous resource of energy 

in our area. As I mentioned, there is 111 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, there is an immense amount of oil shale, all these different resources, so it is not because of lack of opportunity to help 

us with great energy independence. 

Public policy definitely makes these changes and we have seen 

investment shift just because of public policy. 

Mr. LANKFORD. When you say public policy, what do you mean? 

Mr. MCKEE. BLM policy, having to do with leases, different types 

of policies that come out of the Bureau of Land Management. When 

it becomes much easier to invest on private lands compared to public lands, as I mentioned, in my county only 15 percent of my county is privately held. In the west, much of our land is public land. 

If we take that opportunity off the table, what are we doing to the 

national security and the opportunity of energy independence when 

we have unneeded, redundant policies. 

60 

More to the specific question, at least in our area, most of our 

wells are at least a mile deep. Some of them will go a couple miles 

deep. We are not dealing with shale gas. That is why I think it is 

valuable that these decisions are made at the State level because 

when you have a one size fits all type of regulation—I have visited 

with consultants and some of the proposed rules make absolutely 

no sense. The States best handle these kinds of policies. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Let me recognize the Ranking Member. I will also recognize him 

for an additional two minutes beyond the normal questioning time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You are very gracious and I thank the Chair. 

Welcome to our panel. 

Mr. Krancer, I unfortunately had to be at a funeral for a close 

friend this morning and I did not hear your testimony, but had it 

described to me. If I understood correctly, your testimony in essence says, based on your experience in Pennsylvania, you believe 

the other 49 States can also live with pure State regulation, that 

we don’t need Federal regulation in this particular enterprise. Is 

that an accurate characterization of your testimony? 

Mr. KRANCER. Based on my experience in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania is very well able to regulate fracking. Based on my experience with the Environmental Council of the States, my experience 

with other colleagues of mine in other States that do this work, I 

am convinced they can do it in their States. 

It is not done in every State and based on the experience of 

STRONGER, that is why we have groups like STRONGER that 

help us do this. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Based on what I just heard you testify, it sounds 

like Pennsylvania has a robust regulatory framework. You cited, 

for example, chemical disclosure laws which you have to enforce 

and you feel it works very well in Pennsylvania, is that correct? 

Mr. KRANCER. That is correct. I invite you to come visit Pennsylvania and I can show you firsthand how it works. I can take you 

to a well site. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would be glad to do it. I went to high school 

in Pennsylvania, got married in Pennsylvania. I have a lot of ties 

to Pennsylvania. I would be glad to do it. 

Does your expertise extend to the other 49 States? Surely, you 

are not in a position or are you to testify that you are satisfied 

based on empirical evidence that the other 49 States are as robust 

and as diligent as Pennsylvania? 

Mr. KRANCER. That question, I don’t know how to respond because it is not a other 49 State issue. Many other States do not do 

fracking at all. The ones that do do it have a track record that indicates they can do it—Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, Ohio—but 

even if they don’t have an existing program now, as States, and I 

can say this in my experience as a State regulator—are in the best 

position to know their States, know what to do and get the regulatory plan that they need in their State. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You would concede, at least as an intellectual, 

that there could be a State where fracturing is occurring that is not 

as robust and diligent as Pennsylvania. 

Mr. KRANCER. I could concede also that Sasquatch is in the 

woods but that doesn’t get us anywhere. 

61 

Mr. CONNOLLY. This is my time. The point is you don’t have expertise with respect to the other States. You do with Pennsylvania. 

Mr. KRANCER. That is a red herring because you don’t either. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Krancer, the issue here is whether or not the 

Federal Government has a role. You testified you think it should 

not have a role. 

Mr. KRANCER. No, I don’t think the issue is whether the Federal 

Government necessarily has a role. The issue is whether the Federal Government should have a preemptive role or why shouldn’t 

it have a preemptive role. I am here to say it should not have a 

preemptive role. It certainly should have a role in which we discuss 

things together. I often communicate with my counterpart at Region 3 and I am sure my other counterparts do that as well. 

The question on the table is the fundamental one, Ranking Member. Who is in the better place? Are you in the better place in 

Washington to tell Oklahoma what to do? Are you in the better 

place in Washington to tell us in Pennsylvania what to do? The 

bottom line answer is no. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Krancer. I would simply say 

those are the same kinds of arguments that have been used for 

generations against Federal involvement. If we were talking 40 or 

50 years ago about, for example Jim Crow laws and the civil rights 

movement, we would have heard testimony right here at this table. 

Mr. Chairman, I insist that the committee rules be adhered to. 

This is my time. Mr. Krancer, I gave you the benefit of the doubt 

and allowed you to answer as you wished. It is now my time and 

I believe that philosophy is an error. I don’t share it. 

Mr. KRANCER. That philosophy was enacted in 2005. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I insist on regular order. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Krancer, allow the member to speak. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe the philosophy that there is no role for the Federal Government or there should never be any preemptive role for the Federal Government has been proven false by history. That is clearly 

what this hearing is designed to do, as was the hearing this morning. I don’t share the philosophy. 

The fact that you have had a good experience in Pennsylvania I 

don’t believe can necessarily be extrapolated to the rest of the country. As you have indicated, you don’t have the expertise actually to 

say here at this table under oath that you are satisfied based on 

empirical evidence that all of the other States that are involved 

have similar, robust regulatory regimes. 

Mr. Howarth, you talked about methane. What is wrong with 

methane? 

Mr. HOWARTH. Methane comes from lots of sources but the single 

largest source of methane to the atmosphere of the United States 

is the natural gas industry. At least 39–40 percent or more of 

methane pollution comes from there. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So what? 

Mr. HOWARTH. Why do we care? It is an incredibly powerful 

greenhouse gas. It is low hanging fruit in terms of trying to start 

to address global warming. If we get methane under control, we are 

far better along than CO2. I can go into more detail on that. It also 

is a major contributor ground level ozone. I mentioned that briefly 

62 

in my statement. I should point out that ground level ozone already 

causes 30,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So methane, in and of itself, is not a danger except for the global warming part of it? 

Mr. HOWARTH. Methane is not toxic. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. It helps create increased levels of ozone? 

Mr. HOWARTH. It definitely leads to increased levels. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ozone is a danger to human health? 

Mr. HOWARTH. It releases other things such as benzene which is 

also a contributor. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is ozone regulated by the EPA? 

Mr. HOWARTH. Ozone definitely is regulated. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ground level ozone, for example? 

Mr. HOWARTH. Ground level ozone is regulated by the EPA. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right here in the National Capital Region, I 

seem to recall that we are subject because we are a non-attainment 

area, serious EPA regulation with respect to ground level ozone, 

correct? 

Mr. HOWARTH. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That might be a concern. 

I am running out of time but one of the other concerns that has 

come up and help us understand the science of it a little bit, what 

about reports of seismic events associated with the return I guess 

of fracking effluent. 

Mr. HOWARTH. There has been an increase in earthquakes, relatively small earthquakes but still a large number of small earthquakes in several places—Ohio, Oklahoma and elsewhere. The U.S. 

Geological Survey, after a thorough study, has attributed this to 

disposal of frac return waste into ground disposal wells that has 

changed the geology in such a way as to increase that. They have 

seen the increase. 

I should point out that the industry is moving more towards getting oil rather than gas out of shale because of the market considerations at the moment, the relative prices of the two. The largest 

oil reserves in shale in the United States are in the central valley 

of California and in the Los Angeles Basin. There the earthquake 

concerns with disposal of frac waste should give everyone pause. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your graciousness. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. Kelly? 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman. 

I thank all of you on the panel today. 

We do have great differences of opinion as to where we are going 

with this. When I am back home in western Pennsylvania, there 

is a great deal of concern about the Federal Government getting involved in areas where those people in those States don’t think they 

should. Why now? What is going on that all of a sudden the EPA 

has to get involved in fracking. This isn’t new. It is 60 years old 

and has been going on for a long time. We are talking about eight 

times the Empire State Building, one on top of the other, on top 

of the other, it is that far below the surface, so this isn’t right at 

the surface. 

63 

I get a little bit concerned about that because we hear about this 

new technology. I know there is great innovation and the horizontal drilling but if you could, Mr. Krancer, you are from Pennsylvania and we talked before, why now? What is going on that there 

is this public concern and what brought it about? 

Mr. KRANCER. I think it harkens back to the article I just mentioned that I would be happy to provide to the committee. I think 

Madison wrote about this in the Federalist papers, there is a tendency to want more power, so that may be part of what is going on 

here as well. 

Ms. WROTENBERY. First of all, you have to keep in mind some 

people are labeling all kinds of issues associated with oil and gas, 

drilling and production as hydraulic fracturing. There are certainly 

some issues associated with the rapid development of oil and gas 

in areas where it has not occurred before. We have seen that happen in various parts of the country. It has happened in certain 

areas of Oklahoma. 

Mr. KELLY. This has been around for 60 some years. We have 

never had this degree of concern before. There is a large swath of 

Marcellus shale through Pennsylvania, so why Dimock, PA, why 

this little town and why not some of the other areas? 

Mr. KRANCER. If you are asking me, I could talk for an hour 

about Dimock and I won’t. The State had been taking care of issues 

in Dimock for both an enforcement and technical standpoint for a 

long time. All of a sudden, the EPA, for reasons of which I have 

no idea, decided in January they have to come in, I suppose as a 

big brother, or as white knight or whatever, and do water testing 

and start supplying water to four families. 

As Representative Lankford correctly pointed out, it was interesting because the reports of no health impact would always come 

out on a Friday afternoon at about 4 p.m. and then they, of course, 

would die in the press. There have been four rounds of sampling 

and four nothings. Actually, Representative Marina was very interested in that because even at midcourse, they had spent $1 million 

out of the Superfund Response Fund which certainly could have 

gone a long way in northeastern Pennsylvania on a lot of Superfund Response projects. 

Mr. KELLY. In that case, they tested 59 wells and found nothing 

that indicated fracturing was causing a problem. 

Mr. KRANCER. More than that, they found no health impacts 

whatsoever. Remember, when they came to Dimock in the first 

place, they never made a connection between hydraulic fracturing 

and what it is they were looking for. I asked them specifically and 

they said, no, we don’t have an enforcement connection here. 

Mr. KELLY. So if Gasland doesn’t come out, the movie doesn’t 

come out, I won’t call it a documentary, Dimock, PA probably 

doesn’t get on anybody’s radar? 

Mr. KRANCER. Dimock was put on the radar, if I have my movie 

history correctly, by that film. 

Mr. KELLY. I think all of us are concerned. Sound science, I am 

totally in favor of. Political science, I wonder because a lot of this 

is the result of if you don’t succeed at first, try it again. I am wondering where we are going with this and at what point does the 

EPA walk away from this and say we don’t need this. 

64 

I know in Pennsylvania you have done a great job, I know in 

Oklahoma, you have done a great job. I think the question does 

come down, and always in this town we talk about it, when is it 

that the Federal Government gets out of the way and lets the 

States take care of themselves. 

Mr. KRANCER. That is a great question. I have never been compared to Jim Crow or in favor of Jim Crow for my views on Federal/State relationships, but let us remember the history is the 

Federal Government has never shown an interest, whatever Administration, whatever Congress, whatever EPA. That was what 

the Safe Drinking Water Act was about. That was what the 2005 

Energy Policy Act was about. That was a bipartisan Act which Ken 

Salazar and the current President of the United States voted for. 

Mr. KELLY. I would think that right now, this great abundance, 

the accessibility and the affordability of natural gas really had a 

great influence on a green agenda because this is supposed to be 

the bridge to get us there. Now we are finding out that instead of 

being the bridge, it is actually the bedrock of energy in this country. 

You and I talked earlier about this. I don’t want to be in a fair 

fight with the rest of the world when we have natural resources 

right here provided by God and we are not taking advantage of 

them to put ourselves in the best position in the world economically. Why in the world would we continue to keep the government’s boot on the throat of success and the great opportunities 

and jobs for this country and the revenue that could be produced? 

I know I am out of time. I want to thank you all for being here. 

I know it is frustrating but we will keep working on it and try to 

get to the bottom of it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

I would like to thank the panel for being here. 

I would like to start with Ms. Wrotenbery since she is my neighbor to the north in Oklahoma and I am from Texas. 

Exxon Mobil put together a little graphic that I wanted to share 

with you. This basically shows a drilling. About 100 feet under, you 

typically will hit the groundwater. I realize you might have a little 

difficulty seeing that. Then to protect the groundwater, there are 

multiple layers of concrete and steel casing. This is true in both 

conventional wells that go down and hit a pool of oil or gas or a 

reservoir of oil and gas as well as in hydraulic fracking. Is that an 

accurate statement? 

Ms. WROTENBERY. Yes, the way the freshwater resources are protected. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So in a case where there is hydraulic fracking 

as opposed to traditional, it is basically protected the same way, so 

similar risks of groundwater contamination exist from how we have 

been producing oil and gas since the Civil War, basically? 

Ms. WROTENBERY. We have had casing implementing requirements for oil and gas wells for many decades. They have actually 

evolved and improved over the years but a basic principle throughVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 29, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74754.TXT APRIL
65 

out the history of regulation has been we case the well through the 

freshwater zone to isolate that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. When you frack a well, you are quite a bit 

below the water table. The water table is a couple hundred feet in 

Oklahoma? 

Ms. WROTENBERY. The geology varies. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. You are talking hundreds of feet, not thousands of feet? 

Ms. WROTENBERY. In a few isolated areas, it can be very deep. 

Typically though, you are right. We actually have that mapped. We 

have on our Internet the maps that show the base of fresh water 

throughout the State of Oklahoma. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. When you are fracking, you are traditionally 

much, much, much deeper. We are talking miles. Certainly in most 

Texas cases, it is at least a mile, sometimes two miles below the 

water table. The chance of something migrating up through the 

rock up two miles defies commonsense if that is an issue. 

Let me go on and visit with Mr. McKee. Most of your land, you 

have to get BLM permits and all sorts of permits. In Texas, we 

kind of fly through it in weeks and months but certainly not years 

in getting something permitted on private land. I assume there is 

a cost associated with this, not just with jobs, is that correct? 

Mr. MCKEE. Yes, that is correct. There is a study that was just 

released that shows the investment on every well is about $6 million in Utah. There is the mineral lease royalties and there are the 

jobs. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. When land is leased from the Federal Government, you pay a bonus to get the lease, buy the lease? 

Mr. MCKEE. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Then from everything that is produced, the 

Federal Government gets a royalty, so we get a percentage from 

the money the oil and gas is sold for that we can use to pay for 

roads and highways, we can bring into the Federal budget to help 

balance the budget. It is a source of income we are losing as a Federal Government. 

Mr. MCKEE. Absolutely. Let me give one example. Recently, six 

leases were reinstated. I believe it was about 6,000 acres. The right 

to lease on those lands cost the bidders $48.6 million just for those 

6,000 acres, the right to drill and then there is a 12.5 percent royalty that comes in to the Federal Government. There is a sharing 

formula with the States. That is a tremendous source of revenue. 

I indicated there was over $200 million of Federal mineral lease 

royalties coming out of my county. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I also sit on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. One of the ways we are looking to pay for maintaining our deteriorating infrastructure of roads, bridges and the 

interstate highway system is using that royalty money. Those 

delays are costing the American people not just in dollars and cents 

but in much needed repairs and even the safety of our highway 

system. 

Mr. MCKEE. Absolutely. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Let me go on to Mr. Krancer. Are you familiar 

with the statement of the former Region 6 EPA Director, Al 

66 

Armendariz, when he wanted to crucify the oil and gas industry? 

Do you see that as actually happening? 

Mr. KRANCER. You don’t really want to lead me into that discussion, do you? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I am from Texas. He was our EPA guy. 

Mr. KRANCER. Actually I met Al once and I only know what I 

have read in the papers. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Do you get a feeling the EPA is targeting the 

oil and gas industry unfairly? 

Mr. KRANCER. I try to keep my eye on my own court and what 

we are doing. I do see permit delays and permit lags. I talked this 

morning about the rocket docket for regulations, historic regulations in air and so forth compared to the snail docket for getting 

permits done. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I see I am out of time. 

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

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

We are going to do a couple minutes of questioning here to do 

some follow up. 

I just need some clarification on this and this is just a process 

question. A new guidance has been released by EPA dealing with 

the diesel fuels issue and EPA involvement. Obviously there has 

been traditional primacy in the oversight process for fracking in 

States. 

I am interested in how you are interpreting that, how that is 

working through the process of that guidance dealing with diesel 

fuels and fracking and expanding the definition of diesel fuels? 

Does that make sense? How is that going and what are you doing 

with that? 

Ms. WROTENBERY. It is in process. We are reviewing the document. I will say it does not directly apply to the State of Oklahoma 

because we administer the UIC Program for oil and gas operations 

under Section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, so we have a 

little bit different framework but we are looking at it closely because there is no doubt that EPA will be coming to visit with us 

about how we address the various elements that are in that guidance. 

There are some key issues in there that concern us. We are putting our comments together and we will be submitting those. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Is it your assumption that the guidance will become a rule or is it your assumption this is just an opinion piece 

that will probably affect BLM areas but won’t affect private areas? 

Ms. WROTENBERY. We are concerned that EPA will implement it 

as if it were a rule. 

Mr. LANKFORD. That they apply the same? 

Ms. WROTENBERY. Yes. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Krancer? 

Mr. KRANCER. I am sorry, were you talking about the BLM rule 

or the diesel fracking permitting guidance? 

Mr. LANKFORD. The diesel fracking permitting guidance. 

Mr. KRANCER. Let me say first, I don’t believe that is going to 

be an issue in Pennsylvania. There is no information that we have 

that diesel fuel is being used for fracking. I don’t know whether 

that is going to be an issue in other States. 

67 

EPA does have primacy of the UIC Program in Pennsylvania. 

That is because we don’t do a lot of UIC disposal but I think you 

hit the nail on the head, we have to keep an eye on what the country does on— Mr. LANKFORD. The EPA is currently in the process of trying to 

redefine what is a diesel fuel. That was my question to you. That 

conversation is ongoing. How are you processing that with EPA at 

this point? 

Mr. KRANCER. We are watching it very carefully because it is the 

proverbial nose in the camel’s tent, to use a cliche. The 2005 Energy Policy Act did exclude fracking with diesel fuel. We all know 

that. If you define diesel fuel to be everything, then you have probably gone beyond what the law intended and you probably acted illegally to boot. 

Mr. LANKFORD. One quick last question, Ms. Wrotenbery, a comment was made earlier about earthquakes in Oklahoma based on 

fracking and a direct tie on that. Are you aware of earthquakes in 

Oklahoma based on the fracking itself? 

Ms. WROTENBERY. We are working with seismologists at the University of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Geological Survey to study 

the possible connection between earthquakes and various types of 

oil and gas operations. Any statements that have been made that 

there has been some kind of conclusive link are premature. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Are earthquakes in Oklahoma common, small 

earthquakes? 

Ms. WROTENBERY. Yes. We live in a seismically active area. The 

records show that. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

I yield to the Ranking Member for three minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. McKee, like you, I come from local government. I was the 

chairman of my county before I came here, so I appreciate your 

service. I think local government is very important. 

Did I understand your testimony to mean that you felt excessive 

Federal regulation, BLM regulation, inter alia, had served as an 

impediment to job creation in your community? 

Mr. MCKEE. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. What is the unemployment rate in Uintah? 

Mr. MCKEE. Today, it is only about 4.1 percent. However, when 

the downturn in the economy happened, because we are an extractive community, we didn’t know there was even a recession going 

on as far as what we were feeling until we had new policies that 

came in and almost overnight, we lost a number of jobs because of 

new policies. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. At 4.1 percent which is pretty low. 

Mr. MCKEE. Today, it is 4 percent. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Four percent. How does that rank with other 

counties in Utah? 

Mr. MCKEE. We are among the best. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Might it be the lowest rate in Utah? 

Mr. MCKEE. I would have to double check that. I am not sure 

but we are pretty good because of our oil and gas economy. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. What percentage of your county is Federallyowned or controlled land? 

68 

Mr. MCKEE. I know we are only 15 percent privately held. I believe it is about 59 percent that is BLM, there is some forest and 

17.5 percent with the tribe and a little bit of State institutional 

trust lands. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Do you have any idea on that Federal land how 

many leases have, in fact, or permits have been granted but not 

utilized? 

Mr. MCKEE. I know there is a fairly strong backlog on the permitting process today. I believe I was told there were over 1,000 

permits that are backlogged, that they have not been able to issue 

because of the backlog issue. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. In some cases, it is also a utilization issue, isn’t 

it, that some have been granted and not used? 

Mr. MCKEE. What I am told is many times it is very difficult because sometimes these permits show up in a category as though 

they have been issued but they are still waiting for the government 

to finalize what they are doing so they get held up. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Obviously one of the things we have talked about 

today is air pollution, whether attributed to fracking or whatever. 

Your county is largely a rural county, is it not? 

Mr. MCKEE. It is. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. One would normally expect in a rural county relatively clean air. How does Uintah County stack up in that regard? 

Mr. MCKEE. Overall, our air quality is good with the exception 

of winter ozone. We do have a winter ozone issue, if I could touch 

on that quickly. If I could disagree a bit with my colleague to the 

left, it indicated the use of hydraulic fracturing was causing the 

winter ozone issue. I have personally been very involved with this 

issue, meeting with State and even the EPA offices in Denver. We 

have had roundtable discussions and extensive studies going on. I 

have never yet heard to this date of any tie to hydraulic fracturing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I know my time is running out. I was stunned 

to learn that you actually topped Los Angeles on a number of occasions at 149 ppb with respect to ozone. In fact, the EPA called it 

unearthly at some point. What is the cause of such high ozone levels in Uintah County? 

Mr. MCKEE. There appears to be a number of factors the scientists are still trying to learn about. One of the things they recognize is it is tied with sunlight and snow. This past winter, we did 

not have very much snow on the ground, we did not have any 

exceedances. In fact, we were well below the number. A year ago, 

we had deep snow and the numbers were fairly high. The jury is 

still out and that is what they are trying to find out. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

We will now take a short recess to prepare for the second panel. 

Thank you very much for being here and staying for two rounds 

of questioning. I appreciate the time very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. LANKFORD. We will now welcome our second panel of witnesses. Thank you both for being here. 

Nancy Stoner is Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and Mike Pool is Acting Deputy 

69 

Director of the Bureau of Land Management as of tomorrow. We 

are breaking you in officially. We will try to be done before you are 

actually placed as Acting Administrator. 

As I mentioned to everyone, we do have votes that will be called 

shortly, so we will try to get in both your testimonies. 

Ms. Stoner, we would be glad to receive your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY STONER 

Ms. STONER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly 

and members of the subcommittee. 

I am Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water at 

USEPA. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Ms. Stoner, I apologize for this. I did not swear 

in everyone. Every hearing has to have some swearing in it. 

If I could ask you both to stand so I can swear you in. Please 

rise and raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Mr. LANKFORD. May the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. I apologize for having to stall you in the 

moment. You may start over or pick up where you left off. 

Ms. STONER. I think I will pick up right where I stopped. 

The EPA and this Administration recognize that natural gas represents an important energy resource for our country. Increased on 

reliance on gas has the potential to create jobs, promote energy, security, lower energy prices and reduce harmful emissions to air and 

water. 

At the same time, the Administration is committed to ensuring 

that production proceeds in a safe and responsible manner. We 

firmly believe we can protect the health of American families and 

communities while enjoying the benefits of expanded national energy reserves. 

While States are the primary regulators of onshore oil and gas 

activity, the Federal Government has an important role to play by 

regulating oil and gas activities on public and Indian trust lands, 

research and development aimed at innovation to improve the safety of natural gas development and transportation activities and setting sensible, cost effective, public health and environmental standards to implement Federal laws and complement State safeguards. 

As the senior policy manager for EPA’s National Water Program, 

I would like to highlight a few of the EPA’s recent actions under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act intended to 

ensure that natural gas production can remain protective of human 

health and the environment. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act governs the construction, operation, permitting and closure of underground injection wells for the 

protection of underground sources of drinking water. Underground 

injection control or UIC programs administered by EPA or the 

States are responsible for overseeing these injection activities. 

However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 excludes hydraulic fracVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 29, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74754.TXT APRIL
70 

turing from regulation under EPA’s UIC Program, except when diesel fuels are used in fluids or propping agents. 

The EPA has heard from both industry and the public that we 

should clarify the applicability of the permitting requirement for 

diesel fuels, hydraulic fracturing as well as how those permits 

should be written. 

In response and in light of the significant increase in natural gas 

production in the United States, we have developed draft guidance 

to clarify requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act and to 

help prevent the endangerment of underground sources of drinking 

water from hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuels. 

The EPA developed this draft guidance with input from industry, 

States, tribes and other Federal departments and agencies, environmental organizations and the public. I would like to emphasize 

that as is the case with all guidance, the draft document does not 

impose any new requirements. The draft clarifies existing statutory 

and regulatory requirements and provides technical recommendations for applying UIC Class II requirements to the diesel fuels hydraulic fracturing process. 

The guidance is intended for use by EPA permit writers under 

the UIC Program and will be applicable where EPA is directly responsible for the UIC Class II Program. We are taking public comments on the draft through July 9 and welcome comments from all 

affected parties and the public. 

The agency has also initiated efforts under the Clean Water Act 

to provide regulatory clarity and protection against risks to water 

quality. In October 2011, EPA announced a schedule to develop 

pretreatment standards for waste water discharges produced by 

natural gas extraction from underground, coal bed and shale formations. 

In addition, EPA is assisting State and Federal permitting authorities in the Marcellus Shale Region by answering technical 

questions concerning the treatment and disposal of wastewater 

from shale gas extraction. The EPA has also been conducting research to better understand the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. That is through our Office of 

Research and Development. 

In conclusion, EPA’s activities related to hydraulic fracturing 

help assure that public health and water quality remain protected 

as natural gas helps to promote our Nation’s economic recovery and 

security. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and I 

am happy to take any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Stoner follows:] 

71 


Insert offset folio 43 here 74754.043
72 


Insert offset folio 44 here 74754.044
73 


Insert offset folio 45 here 74754.045
74 


Insert offset folio 46 here 74754.046
75 


Insert offset folio 47 here 74754.047
76 


Insert offset folio 48 here 74754.048
77 


Insert offset folio 49 here 74754.049
78 


Insert offset folio 50 here 74754.050
79 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Pool. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL 

Mr. POOL. Mr. Chairman Lankford and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Bureau of 

Land Management’s development of hydraulic fracturing rules and 

their application on Federal and tribal trust lands. 

The BLM administers over 245 million acres of surface estate 

and approximately 700 million acres of onshore Federal mineral estate throughout the Nation. Together with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we also provide permitting and oversight services on approximately 56 million acres of Indian trust minerals. 

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has emphasized that as we 

move forward to the new energy frontier, the development of conventional energy resources from BLM-managed public lands will 

continue to play a crucial role in meeting the Nation’s energy 

needs. Facilitating the safe, responsible and efficient development 

of these domestic oil and gas resources is the BLM’s responsibility 

and part of the Administration’s broad energy strategy to protect 

consumers and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

In fiscal year 2011, onshore Federal oil and gas royalties exceeded $2.7 billion, approximately half of which was paid directly to the 

States in which the development occurred. Tribal oil and gas royalties exceeded $400 million with 100 percent of those revenues paid 

to the tribes and individual Indians owning the land on which the 

development occurred. 

Oil and gas production from shale formation scattered across the 

United States has grown considerably and is expected to continue 

in the coming decades. Factors contributing to this success include 

technological advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. 

The BLM estimates that approximately 90 percent of the wells 

built on public lands and Indian lands are stimulated by hydraulic 

fracturing techniques. The increasing use of hydraulic fracturing 

has raised public concerns about the potential impact on water 

availability and quality, particularly with respect to the chemical 

composition of fracturing fluids and the methods used. 

The BLM recognizes that some, but not all, States have recently 

taken action to address hydraulic fracturing in their own regulations. One of the BLM’s key goals in updating its regulations on 

hydraulic fracturing is to complement these State efforts by providing consistent standards across all public and Indian lands. 

The agency has a long history of working cooperatively with 

State regulators to coordinate State and Federal activities. The proposed rulemaking is not intended to duplicate various State or applicable Federal requirements. The BLM’s intent is to encourage efficiency in the collection of data and the reporting of information. 

The development of the hydraulic fracturing rule includes tribal 

consultation under the Department’s consultation policy. This policy emphasizes trust, respect and shared responsibility by providing tribal governments an expanded role to inform Federal policy that impacts Indian lands. 

80 

In January 2012, the BLM conducted a series of meetings in the 

west where there is significant development of Indian oil and gas 

resources. Nearly 180 tribal leaders were invited to attend these 

meetings held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Billings, Montana, Salt Lake 

City, Utah and Farmington, New Mexico. Eighty-four tribal members representing 24 tribes attended these meetings. 

On May 11, 2012, the BLM sent over 180 invitations for continued government-to-government consultation, to exchange information on the development of hydraulic fracturing rules. As the agency continues to consult with tribal leaders throughout the rulemaking process, responses from these representatives will inform 

our actions and define the scope of acceptable hydraulic fracturing 

rule options. 

The BLM’s proposed rule is consistent with the American Petroleum Institute’s guideline for well construction and integrity. On 

May 11, 2012, the BLM published the proposed rule in the Federal 

Register beginning a 60-day public comment period. 

Straightforward measures outlined in the proposed rule include 

disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations with 

appropriate protections for trade secrets; assurance of a well born 

integrity to minimize the risk of fracturing fluids leaking into the 

nearby aquifers and water management requirements to apply to 

the fluids that flow back to the surface after hydraulic fracturing 

has taken place. 

The hydraulic fracturing proposed rule will strengthen the requirements for hydraulic fracturing performed on Federal and Indian trust lands in order to build public confidence and protect the 

health of American communities while ensuring continued access to 

important resources to our energy economy. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Pool follows:] 

81 


Insert offset folio 51 here 74754.051
82 


Insert offset folio 52 here 74754.052
83 


Insert offset folio 53 here 74754.053
84 


Insert offset folio 54 here 74754.054
85 


Insert offset folio 55 here 74754.055
86 


Insert offset folio 56 here 74754.056
87 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. Thank you not only for your written 

testimony but your oral testimony and for allowing you to come in 

on your pre-first day. 

We are verifying right now, I think they may be calling the votes. 

If they are calling the votes right now, that is going to interrupt 

our schedule. We will hesitate for just a moment to see. 

It looks like they are calling the vote. If they are, we can do a 

round of questions and come back and do a second round or we can 

try to stall and do both rounds when we are back. We will try to 

do maybe three minutes in the first round and come back and do 

a second round. The second round we will do like 18 minutes each 

or something like that. 

Let me yield to Mr. Kelly for the first round. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Stoner, I am trying to understand the change in EPA’s interpretation of a regulation. Why was the 2010 announcement not 

subject to the notice and comment procedure? I am talking specifically when we go into the diesel element of it. That was kind of 

fast paced, was it not? It was just placed on your website and 

wasn’t really the regular procedure taken? 

Ms. STONER. This is a guidance document, so it is an interpretation of the statute and the regulations. 

Mr. KELLY. I am talking about before the guidance document 

that EPA posted on their website on the permit using the diesel in 

fracking. 

Ms. STONER. The EPA has on its website information about what 

is in the Energy Policy Act including the fact that when hydraulic 

fracturing is done with diesel fuels, a permit is required. That is 

in the statute so we did include that information on our website. 

As you may know, we did have a lawsuit associated with that. 

Which has been— Mr. KELLY. I understand but that is different than the document 

that existed before the 2010. Is it true, that has changed? 

Ms. STONER. I am not sure I understand your question. 

Mr. KELLY. There is a letter from Acting Assistant Administrator 

Ben Grumbles to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee stating that the use of hydraulic fracturing using diesel does 

not fall within the scope of the UIC Class II Program. That is before 2010. 

Ms. STONER. Was that before 2005? 

Mr. KELLY. No, it is before 2010 The EPA then decides to change 

that, just going on their website and saying it. It didn’t go through 

the normal processing is what I am saying. 

Ms. STONER. It is not my understanding the agency changed its 

position between 2001 and 2005. In 2001, there was a court decision that said hydraulic fracturing was within the Class II UIC 

Program. It was at that point that the agency changed its position 

in response to the Federal court. 

Mr. KELLY. Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I ask this letter be 

put in. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Without objection. 

Mr. KELLY. I think the concern is things change rather quickly 

and a process that all of a sudden that was not policy before becomes policy, does not go through the regular process. The fracVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:49 Jun 29, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74754.TXT APRIL
88 

turing was not part of what was in the policy, using diesel fuel. All 

of a sudden it did become part of it. 

Ms. STONER. We are implementing the 2005 statute with the 

guidance that is going through public notice and comment now 

after a series of public meetings and discussions with a variety of 

different groups. We are undertaking that process. We agree with 

you it is important to have the involvement and a wide variety of 

partners and stakeholders in the process. 

Mr. KELLY. That is the intent of the whole process and that is 

why I wondered why it was fast tracked like that. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I yield back. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I recognize Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Welcome to both of our panelists. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Just to clarify, I am confused, EPA is not proposing a general 

broad regulation on fracturing. It is only proposing fracturing within the statutory framework provided in the 2005 legislation and the 

subsequent court ruling, is that correct, Ms. Stoner? 

Ms. STONER. Yes, that is correct. We are interpreting the statute 

and the regulation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. For example, if it does not involve diesel, you are 

not regulating the process? 

Ms. STONER. That is correct. Diesel fuels is in the statute, that 

is what we are implementing. Congress imposed the obligation on 

hydraulic fracturing operations using diesel fuels to obtain a permit and the guidance explains how to do that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. This assertion of regulatory responsibility in this 

particular lane involving diesel was actually insisted upon, is that 

correct, or ruled upon by a court? 

Ms. STONER. The court determined that hydraulic fracturing was 

covered under the UIC Class II Program. That was in 2001. Congress took action in 2005 that limited that permitting requirement 

only to hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuel. What the proposed 

guidance does is indicate how that should be implemented. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why did it take seven years from that legislation 

to today to get around to proposed regulations? 

Ms. STONER. Initially at the EPA we did a memorandum of 

agreement with companies involved in coal bed methane hydraulic 

fracturing indicating they would not use diesel fuels. A shift in the 

industry has happened so that there is now more hydraulic fracturing that is outside that realm of the coal bed methane. That is 

why we no longer view the initial steps as sufficient to comply with 

what Congress asked us to do 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Are you aware of any cases where fracturing has 

come to a halt because of your pending regulatory rules? 

Ms. STONER. No, I am not aware of any. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You are also proposing as an emission to regulate 

carcinogens, benzene and volatile organic compounds but not methane, is that correct? 

Ms. STONER. That would be an air rule you are asking about. I 

don’t know the answer to that question. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You don’t know the answer. My understanding is 

you are not proposing anything with respect to methane. 

89 

Ms. STONER. I am sorry, I don’t know the answer. We could submit that information for the record. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You will recall earlier the Professor’s testimony 

that methane actually is a very serious concern of his and other 

academics and scientists looking at fracturing. The reason is because it is part of a family of organic compounds—methane in and 

of itself may not be dangerous but it is a precursor and other carcinogens. 

Mr. Pool, did you hear the testimony of Mr. McKee from Uintah, 

Utah? 

Mr. POOL. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. He testified that essentially BLM, being the 

owner of 59 percent of the land mass in his county, is really putting the crimp in their style in terms of the ability to exploit natural resources because it is Federally-owned land and Federallycontrolled land. Would you comment? I know this is your first day 

in this particular set of responsibilities. 

Mr. POOL. That is a very prolific region in terms of natural gas 

and potential development. We have issued quite a few leases up 

there and we have issued quite a few APDs. I think when it comes 

to leasing Federal land, we have other important responsibilities 

that we have to address in terms of biological and cultural considerations. 

When we go into a leasing process or a full development process, 

we need to work with the operators. These jurisdictions will vary 

depending on the sensitivity of these resources. I think between 

Wyoming and Utah, we have about 6,800 APDs that are what we 

call front logged where we have issued the APDs but the companies 

have not taken action to activate those. I think a percentage of 

those are in Uintah County. I don’t have that exact number. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Essentially the thrust of the testimony from at 

least two of the State officials was we don’t need no stinking Federal Government, why not just let, for example, Utah regulate what 

happens on BLM land. What is wrong with that? 

Mr. POOL. As relates to hydrologic fracturing or fracking, we discovered in reviewing our own regulations that they are very outdated. Many of the States, including Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, 

and Arkansas, were starting to develop regulatory procedures to 

address various requirements associated with fracking. 

We looked at our regulations. I think the Secretary of Interior 

has done an incredible job in terms of public outreach with the 

forum he held in D.C. back in the fall of 2011. Subsequently we 

held regional meetings. We got recommendations from the Secretary of Energy, the Natural Gas Subcommittee, all of which was 

helping the BLM formulate what improved standards should we 

develop. We looked closely at what the State regulators have been 

doing. In many cases, they have been out in front of the BLM. 

The issue is the State fracking regulations don’t pertain to Federal lands. In many provinces of the west, we have fee land, State 

land and we have public land. We would like to think with development of our proposed rule, with a high degree of outreach and public input—that is still ongoing during the comment period—that 

our regulations will be very much complementary to and very much 

90 

in alignment with what States are doing as well. It is important 

that they be in line. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Pool, let me ask about that. The public lands, 

you are saying the State rules would not apply. You are saying 

State regulations in Utah would not apply to fracking? 

Mr. POOL. That is correct. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Was there a consideration to say they would or 

is there a need for BLM to create a whole new group of regulators 

and go in and evaluate this? 

Mr. POOL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our authorities come under two 

principal statutes—the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act. Our regulations have to be basically 

developed under those two statutes for us to enforce whatever requirements we want to impose on the operators. 

Mr. LANKFORD. You mentioned before your regulations were very 

out of date on this. Obviously States keep theirs up to date. 

Mr. POOL. That is correct. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Is there a process in place where BLM is going 

to keep up to date on all the different States? 

Mr. POOL. In developing our proposed rule, we looked at Colorado, Wyoming, Texas and we even looked at Arkansas. We have 

taken into account some of the standards they have developed over 

a period of time. We are using their information along with more 

recent public information to finalize our rule. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I would like to have unanimous consent to add 

to the record a letter from the Governor of Wyoming mentioning 

that he feels the rules are very duplicative to what they already 

do in Wyoming and this will create two different sets and a little 

frustration with that. I would like to add that to the record as well. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Let me ask a couple questions because they have 

called the votes and I want to be able to honor your time as well. 

How long will this process add, do you think, this additional set 

of regulations, to the permitting process? How many days do you 

think it will add? 

Mr. POOL. I don’t have exact days but I think the requirements 

are very basic. In terms of the constituents or chemicals used primarily in many cases is a water/sand-based solution. We are asking 

that companies after they complete the fracking operation to file 

that information to us within 30 days. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I asked because this morning in testimony we 

heard an estimate given that this would add 100 days to the process. I didn’t know if you all had set an estimate on that as well. 

Mr. POOL. I don’t have it with me today but we can provide that. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Ms. Stoner, my concern is on the expanded definition of diesel. It is very clear that diesel fuel is included in the 

2005 but if I drove a diesel truck, which I don’t, and then poured 

kerosene into it, I would not consider that a diesel fuel. If I drove 

a diesel truck and instead of filling it up with diesel, instead I put 

crude oil in there or home heating oil, it would not run because it 

is a diesel vehicle. The definition is fairly clear it is diesel fuel. 

I want to have dialogue about the new, expanded definition of 

diesel fuels. Many of the companies doing fracking saw the ruling 

in 2005, saw the statement from Congress saying diesel fuels will 

91 

be regulated and so they shifted away from diesel fuel. This has 

the perception that because they no longer use diesel fuels, we 

have to redefine what is a diesel fuel to make sure what they are 

using is included. Does that make sense? Crude oil, home heating 

oil, kerosene, those are now suddenly diesel fuels. 

Ms. STONER. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the term diesel 

fuels appears but there is no definition. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Correct. 

Ms. STONER. This is the first attempt the agency has made to 

provide such a definition. It did so by looking at six Chemical Abstract Service or CAS numbers. There are six specific things, all of 

which are diesel fuels—diesel fuel 1, diesel fuel 2. 

Mr. LANKFORD. They are diesel fuel 1, 2 and 3 as designated by 

who, EPA or by some other group? For instance, the petroleum distillates could be just about anything that is a petroleum product. 

Ms. STONER. It has a specific CAS number that doesn’t come 

from the agency called crude oil/diesel fuel. Kerosene is marine diesel fuel. All six of them are diesel fuel and that is where we got 

the six CAS numbers from. We are taking comment on our proposed definition. We would like a very clear definition because it 

links specifically to those six CAS numbers. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I am second guessing whether Congress in 

2005—I was not in Congress in 2005, none of us on this panel 

were—was considering crude oil a diesel fuel or as broad as petroleum distillates as a diesel fuel. That is a very broad definition. 

The concern is that this suddenly seems to reach out with a net 

and be able to snag everything in it. 

I have one other quick comment and then want to share some 

additional time. Why redefining now, why BLM putting in the new 

regulatory environment now before EPA has finished its study? We 

have a study due in just a few months to define whether there is 

even a problem. We just created a new series of regulations, just 

greatly expanded what diesel fuels pertain to the common sense 

view of what is a diesel fuel in the past before EPA finalizes a 

study. 

Ms. STONER. The ORD study will actually take a couple more 

years. We expect to have progress this year but not a final report 

this year. The information we do have about what Congress did in 

terms of diesel fuel is that Congress was focused on benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and zylene or BTEX compounds which are associated with all six of those CAS numbers. 

We are doing our best to interpret what Congress was concerned 

about in terms of chemicals in underground sources of drinking 

water and the potential risk there. That is our proposed description 

of diesel fuels. Again, it is out for public comment. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Will this be retroactive permitting when the new 

definition is done? 

Ms. STONER. The permitting requirements of the statute and the 

regulations apply now but the diesel fuel definition is a proposed 

interpretation of those and would of course not be. 

Mr. LANKFORD. If a State doesn’t abide by the guidelines, will 

they lose primacy in this? 

Ms. STONER. We don’t intend to take away primacy from our 

State partners. We work closely with them on implementing these 

92 

programs in a complementary way and don’t intend to do that. The 

draft guidance applies only to those States where EPA is the permitting authority under the UIC Program. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Would this be mandatory in BLM areas? 

Ms. STONER. It doesn’t differentiate between private lands and 

Federal lands but it does apply only where EPA is the issuing, permitting authority for UIC. States assume that authority. Many 

States like Oklahoma have assumed that authority and it does not 

apply to those States, although they may find it useful. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Pool, obviously that would be your decision 

to make in days to come whether this applies, this guidance. 

I need to give additional minutes back to Mr. Kelly who only got 

three here. 

Mr. KELLY. I thank the Chairman. 

Ms. Stoner, I am going to ask you one thing and very quickly, 

Mr. Pool. The reason I ask is because of Pennsylvania. Dimock, PA, 

I think you are familiar with the movie Gasland. 

Ms. STONER. I am sorry, familiar with what, sir? 

Mr. KELLY. The movie Gasland? 

Ms. STONER. Yes, I am somewhat familiar with it. 

Mr. KELLY. On May 11, Roy Seneca, a spokesman for the regional EPA office said they tested 59 wells in Dimock and found 

the fracking had nothing to do with any contamination of the 

water. He says, this set of sampling did not show levels of contaminants that would give the EPA reason to take further action. 

The conclusion then would be that the EPA doesn’t need to be 

concerned anymore with Dimock, PA with the testing, so the water 

is safe. It is not the result of fracturing, there is nothing that has 

been contaminated. 

Ms. STONER. My understanding is there is some limited additional sampling occurring to verify there is no public health concern but that we have not found a public health concern to date. 

Mr. KELLY. All the testing has turned up nothing that would determine the water was affected by fracking? 

Ms. STONER. My understanding is that we believe nothing required further action. 

Mr. KELLY. Okay, that is a settled issue. 

Mr. Pool, the President talks a lot about the increase in oil and 

gas. Where is the increase taking place? Is it taking place in the 

Federal lands? Where is it taking place? 

Mr. POOL. I think the BLM and the public lands has been a 

major contributor to the production of natural gas and oil. Currently we have about 85,000 producing wells on public lands, about 

90 percent of which we do apply hydraulic fracturing to maximize 

the economic recovery of the resource. 

Mr. KELLY. When we talk about the increase, there has been a 

huge increase, but most of it has taken place in the private sector. 

Ninety-six percent of it by the way, we have a slide that shows 

that. The President is saying wow, look what we have done but 96 

percent of the increase in U.S. oil production has occurred on nonFederal lands. This really has nothing to do with the Administration. 

93 

Mr. POOL. As I mentioned earlier in my comments, we have a variety of statutes that we have to address when we authorize lands 

for lease. 

Mr. KELLY. I understand that. 

Mr. POOL. In recent years, we have been much more measured. 

Mr. KELLY. Do you think this chart is correct? 

Mr. POOL. Congressman, I can’t compare that. 

Mr. KELLY. It is a CRS chart, by the way. I know this is your 

first day but I am trying to determine because I am hearing all the 

time about this tremendous increase under this Administration. 

The fact of the matter is it really has happened in the private sector; it hasn’t happened on Federal lands. I think sometimes you 

have to clear up those things so people actually understand what 

is going on. 

I have a problem with people who take credit for things they 

didn’t have anything to do with. I think the general public never 

sees these things and when they hear these numbers, they say this 

is incredible, what has happened. It has happened through the private sector; it has not happened on Federal lands. 

I think when you look at 96 percent has happened in the private 

sector and 4 percent on Federal, where there would have been 

some influence, it absolutely had nothing to do with it. 

I appreciate the indulgence. We are running short on time. I 

thank you both for being here today. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Would either of you mind if we submit some written statements 

to you later on and get a chance to do some follow up. We do have 

additional questions and want to be able to do some follow up. Do 

either of you have a problem with that? I am sure, Mr. Pool, you 

will have nothing on your desk tomorrow. You will be eagerly 

awaiting these questions. 

Ms. STONER. That would be fine. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, in that category could I just ask 

Mr. Pool if he would give us more detail in writing because I was 

intrigued by his answer with respect to the testimony of Mr. 

McKee on Uintah County and how BLM was an impediment to 

their economically being able to develop that land. I think the subcommittee would welcome more detailed explanation. 

Mr. POOL. I would be glad to give you a complete profile of that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. If I could piggyback on your request, that would 

be great. 

Mr. LANKFORD. That would be great for both the county and the 

committee as we do our research as well. 

Thank you for being here. We will follow up with additional 

questions to submit for the record. 

With that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

94 


Insert offset folio 57 here 74754.057
95 


Insert offset folio 58 here 74754.058
96 


Insert offset folio 59 here 74754.059
97 


Insert offset folio 60 here 74754.060
98 


Insert offset folio 61 here 74754.061
99 


Insert offset folio 62 here 74754.062
100 


Insert offset folio 63 here 74754.063
101 


Insert offset folio 64 here 74754.064
102 


Insert offset folio 65 here 74754.065
103 


Insert offset folio 66 here 74754.066
104 


Insert offset folio 67 here 74754.067
105 


Insert offset folio 68 here 74754.068
106 


Insert offset folio 69 here 74754.069
107 


Insert offset folio 70 here 74754.070
108 


Insert offset folio 71 here 74754.071
109 


Insert offset folio 72 here 74754.072
110 


Insert offset folio 73 here 74754.073
111 


Insert offset folio 74 here 74754.074
112 


Insert offset folio 75 here 74754.075
113 


Insert offset folio 76 here 74754.076
114 


Insert offset folio 77 here 74754.077
115 


Insert offset folio 78 here 74754.078
116 


Insert offset folio 79 here 74754.079
117 


Insert offset folio 80 here 74754.080
118 


Insert offset folio 81 here 74754.081
119 


Insert offset folio 82 here 74754.082
120 


Insert offset folio 83 here 74754.083
121 


Insert offset folio 84 here 74754.084
122 


Insert offset folio 85 here 74754.085
123 


Insert offset folio 86 here 74754.086
124 


Insert offset folio 87 here 74754.087
125 


Insert offset folio 88 here 74754.088
126 


Insert offset folio 89 here 74754.089
127 


Insert offset folio 90 here 74754.090
128 


Insert offset folio 91 here 74754.091
129 


Insert offset folio 92 here 74754.092
130 


Insert offset folio 93 here 74754.093
131 


Insert offset folio 94 here 74754.094
132 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 95 here 74754.095