U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

72-151 PDF 2012

CHALLENGES FACING DOMESTIC OIL AND 

GAS DEVELOPMENT: REVIEW OF BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT/U.S. FOREST 

SERVICE BAN ON HORIZONTAL DRILLING 

ON FEDERAL LANDS 

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY, 

AND FORESTRY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Friday, July 8, 2011 

Committee on Natural Resources Serial No. 112-90 

Committee on Agriculture Serial No. 112-21 

Printed for the use of the Committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture 

( 

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

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman 

RUSH D. HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democrat Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

Vice Chairman 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

ROBERT T. SCHILLING, Illinois 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, 

Ranking Minority Member 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

NICOLE SCOTT, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel 

TAMARA HINTON, Communications Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY, AND FORESTRY

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

BRENT BLEVINS, Subcommittee Staff Director 

(V) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Friday, July 8, 2011 .................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania ............................................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey ................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Thompson, Hon. Glenn T., a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania .................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Abbey, Hon. Robert, Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Fuller, Lee, Vice President of Government Relations, Independent 

Petroleum Association of America ............................................................... 43 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45 

Holtrop, Hon. Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Mall, Amy, Senior Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council ...... 59 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61 

Matsen, Maureen, Deputy Director of Natural Resources and Senior 

Advisor on Energy, Commonwealth of Virginia ......................................... 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Mayer, Craig L., General Counsel, Pennsylvania General Energy 

Company L.L.C. ............................................................................................ 48 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50 

Miller, David, P.E.., Standards Director, American Petroleum Institute .... 41 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42 

Wofford, Kate Giese, Executive Director, Shenandoah Valley Network ...... 56 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 57 

Additional materials supplied: 

Pittsburgh Tribune–Review article, ‘‘Public water safe from radioactivity 

throughout region’’ by Timothy Puko, dated June 21, 2011, .................... 24 

New York Times article ‘‘Drilling Down: Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid 

a Natural Gas Rush’’ by Ian Urbina, dated June 25, 2011, submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 77 

New York Times article ‘‘Behind Veneer, Doubt on Future of Natural 

Gas’’ by Ian Urbina, dated June 26, 2011, submitted for the record ....... 78 

Walton, Peter C., Rockingham County, Virginia ........................................... 81 

(1) 

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE 

‘‘CHALLENGES FACING DOMESTIC OIL AND 

GAS DEVELOPMENT: REVIEW OF BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT/U.S. FOREST SERVICE BAN ON HORIZONTAL DRILLING ON 

FEDERAL LANDS.’’ 

Friday, July 8, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, 

Committee on Natural Resources, joint with the 

Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, 

Committee on Agriculture 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources] 

presiding. 

Present from Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources: 

Representatives Lamborn, Fleming, Thompson, Rivera, Duncan, 

Flores, Fleischmann, Holt, Sarbanes and Markey (ex officio). 

Present from Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and 

Forestry: Representatives Thompson, Goodlatte, Stutzman, Tipton, 

Southerland, Hultgren, Holden, Costa and Pingree. 

Mr. LAMBORN. The Subcommittee hearing will come to order. The 

Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which under Natural 

Resources Committee Rule 3(e) is two Members. 

The Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources and the Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, 

Energy, and Forestry are meeting today for a joint oversight hearing to hear testimony on ‘‘Challenges Facing Domestic Oil and Gas 

Development: Review of Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Forest 

Service Ban on Horizontal Drilling on Federal Lands.’’ 

Under Natural Resources Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee. In addition, opening statements will be offered 

today by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Agriculture 

Subcommittee and, should they wish to participate, the full committee Chairmen and Ranking Members of both committees. 

In addition, I ask unanimous consent to include any other Members’ opening statements in the hearing record if submitted to the 

clerk by close of business today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

2 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUG LAMBORN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

COLORADO 

Mr. LAMBORN. Today the Subcommittee is meeting to review the 

future of oil and gas development on Federal lands in light of 

Administration proposals to enact complete bans on horizontal 

drilling on Federal lands. 

Earlier this year, the U.S. Forest Service of George Washington 

National Forest released a forest plan that had the Administration’s preferred alternative as a ban on horizontal drilling on more 

than one million acres of Federal mineral estate. This plan as proposed by the Administration would essentially close the entire 

resource to energy development, eliminate a key priority in the 

multiple-use mission of Forest Service lands, and further erode our 

efforts to generate domestic energy security. 

While efforts are proposed by the Forest Service to close these 

acres to domestic development of our own natural gas, the Cove 

Point LNG terminal operated by Dominion purchased nearly nine 

million cubic feet of Norwegian natural gas just this year. Let me 

repeat that. While our Forest Service is working to close our 

American lands to all drilling, we are importing natural gas from 

Norway to meet the domestic needs of Virginia and Maryland. 

While the Forest Service is pursuing this ban on fracturing and 

horizontal drilling, BLM is in the process of holding hearings in the 

West to review the policies for the use of fracturing on Federal 

lands. Hydraulic fracturing. BLM Director Abbey was quoted earlier this year saying, ‘‘We have not seen evidence of any adverse 

effects as a result of the use of the chemicals that are part of that 

fracking technology.’’ 

This is important because a 2009 BLM instruction memorandum 

says that, ‘‘Application of directional/horizontal drilling technology 

is increasing. The BLM strongly supports this environmental best 

management practice as a means of providing substantial reductions in surface disturbance and overall impacts from oil and gas 

development.’’ 

BLM says horizontal drilling is an environmental best management practice and there is no evidence of any adverse effects, and 

yet the policy of this Administration now appears to be an outright 

ban starting with 1.1 million acres in Virginia. 

The key questions for the committee today are: How did this policy proposal from the Forest Service reach this point? How did our 

land managers determine that the best policy is an outright ban on 

development, and what does this portend for the future? 

Americans are desperate for new jobs, and today’s jobs report 

says that our economy continues to struggle with only 18,000 new 

jobs created in June. That is why it makes so little sense to ban 

domestic development here while we continue a dependence in the 

case of Virginia and Maryland on Norwegian natural gas. 

The Forest Service, as a custodian of our lands, has an obligation 

to work with a multiple-use mission to serve the people of Virginia 

and the United States by promoting the conservation of our 

resources, which undeniably should include the development of 

appropriate oil and gas resources on Federal lands. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

3 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Today the Subcommittee is meeting to review the future of oil and gas development on federal lands in light of Administration proposals to enact complete bans 

on horizontal drilling on federal lands. 

Earlier this year, the U.S. Forest Service George Washington National Forest released a forest plan that had the Administration’s preferred alternative as a ban 

horizontal drilling on more than 1 million acres of federal mineral estate. This plan 

as proposed by the Administration would essentially close the entire resource to energy development, eliminate a key priority in the multiple-use mission of Forest 

Service lands, and further erode our efforts to generate domestic energy security. 

While efforts are proposed by the Forest Service to close these acres to domestic 

development of our own natural gas, the Cove Point LNG terminal operated by Dominion purchased nearly 9 million cubic feet of Norwegian natural gas THIS YEAR. 

Let me repeat that, while our Forest Service is working to close our lands to all 

drilling, we are importing natural gas from Norway to meet the domestic needs of 

Virginia and Maryland. 

While the Forest Service is pursuing a ban on fracturing and horizontal drilling, 

BLM is in the process of holding hearings in the West to review the policies for the 

use of fracturing on federal lands. BLM Director Abbey was quoted earlier this year 

saying, ‘‘’’We have not seen evidence of any adverse effects as a result of the use 

of the chemicals that are a part of that fracking technology.’’ 

This is important because a 2009 BLM instruction memorandum says: the ‘‘Application of directional/horizontal drilling technology is increasing. The BLM strongly 

supports this environmental Best Management Practice as a means of providing 

substantial reductions in surface disturbance and overall impacts from oil and gas 

development.’’ 

BLM says horizontal drilling is an ‘‘environmental Best Management Practice’’ 

and there is ‘‘no evidence of any adverse effects’’, and yet the policy of this Administration now appears to be an outright ban starting with 1.1 million acres in Virginia. 

The key questions for the Committee today is how did this policy proposal from 

the Forest Service reach this point? How did our land managers determine that the 

best policy is an outright ban on development and what does this portend for the 

future? 

Americans are desperate for new jobs and it makes little sense to ban domestic 

development here, while we continue a dependence on Norwegian natural gas. The 

Forest Service as a custodian of our lands has an obligation to work with a multipleuse mission, to serve the people of Virginia and the United States by promoting the 

conservation of our resources, which undeniably includes the development of appropriate oil and gas resources on Forest Lands. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Representative Holt of New Jersey, for five minutes for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. And will the Chair and Ranking Member 

of the Agriculture Subcommittee also get comments? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Mr. HOLT. Good. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RUSH D. HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

NEW JERSEY 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to the title of today’s hearing, there is a ban on horizontal drilling on Federal lands 

imposed by this Administration. Not true. Unfortunately, once 

again this is a hearing title which amounts to a broad and misleading generalization, another case of blowing an issue far out of 

proportion to score what seem to be political or ideological points. 

4 

In fact, the so-called ban in question is actually one of seven possible alternatives of a draft environmental impact statement issued 

as part of a required update of the land resource management plan 

for the George Washington National Forest. So let me reiterate. No 

decisions have been made on whether or not to allow horizontal 

drilling in the George Washington National Forest. 

Now, it is appropriate that we have a hearing on it. All that has 

happened, though, is that the Forest Service is evaluating the environmental impacts of a number of alternatives as required by law, 

and they should be looking at these alternatives and we should be 

looking at them too. 

None of the alternatives discussed in the EIS would change the 

existing practice of allowing traditional vertical oil and gas drilling 

in George Washington Forest for the—I forget how many—acres 

that are already under lease. Twelve thousand acres are already 

under lease. Furthermore, none of the alternatives, it appears, are 

going to—well, we will look at those alternatives. 

Horizontal drilling is commonly used in association with hydraulic fracturing, and recent investigations have raised questions 

about potential water quality hazards associated with fracking. 

There is currently a study of potential effects being conducted by 

the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The Counties of Rockingham, Augusta and Shenandoah, 

Virginia, three of the largest agricultural counties in the State, 

have expressed their opposition to allowing horizontal drilling in 

the National Forest because of concerns about water quality. The 

Cities of Harrisonburg and Staunton, those cities have passed similar resolutions of opposition. 

To underscore the importance of being cautious about moving forward with hydraulic fracturing in this area, the George Washington National Forest protects a number of river basins, including 

the Potomac River, that provides drinking water for us, you here 

in Washington, D.C. 

Given the local concerns and the unanswered questions, the 

Forest Service I believe is acting responsibly with their proposed 

EIS and the procedure associated with it while we wait for the 

facts to be assembled, which is the point I want to make. I mean, 

even if the Forest Service were eventually to decide to prohibit horizontal drilling in the George Washington Forest, it should be 

based on facts, and we know it would not be a permanent ban. 

The Forest Service has made it clear that if natural gas can be 

accessed in nearby areas on private lands without adverse impacts 

to water quality the Forest Service should consider and reconsider 

the issue. But banned or permitted, the decision should be based 

on evidence. The distortion in the title of today’s hearing makes me 

wonder how grounded in evidence this discussion will be. 

Now, in the last 20 years natural gas development on Federal 

lands has more than doubled, from 1.2 trillion cubic feet 20 years 

ago to about 3 trillion cubic feet last year. Moreover, according to 

the Bureau of Land Management, 90 percent of the new natural 

gas wells on public lands employ hydraulic fracturing. So overall, 

U.S. natural gas production is at its highest level ever. 

You know, the plans for terminals to import liquified natural gas 

are being turned around because it is likely that there will be for 

5 

as far as we can see export of natural gas. So those are the facts 

as I see them. I hope that we will restrict this hearing to, wherever 

possible, evidence and facts. 

I thank the Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rush D. Holt, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

According to the title of today’s hearing, there is a ban on horizontal drilling on 

federal lands imposed by the Administration. Unfortunately, once again, this is a 

hearing title which amounts to a broad and misleading generalization. 

In fact, the ‘‘ban’’ in question is actually only one of seven possible alternatives 

in a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued as part of a required 

update to the Land and Resource Management Plan for the George Washington 

National Forest. Let me just reiterate that—No decisions have yet been made on 

whether or not to allow horizontal drilling in the George Washington National 

Forest. All that has happened is that the Forest Service is evaluating the environmental impacts of a number of alternatives as required by law. Furthermore, none 

of the alternatives discussed in the EIS would change the existing practice of allowing traditional, vertical oil and gas drilling in the George Washington Forest. It 

appears though, that the oil and gas industry is not seeing the forest for the trees. 

Horizontal drilling is commonly used in association with hydraulic fracturing. 

Recent investigations have raised questions about potential water quality hazards 

associated with fracking, and there currently is a study of potential effects being 

conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Counties of Rockingham, 

Augusta, and Shenandoah, Virginia—three of the largest agricultural counties in 

the state—have expressed their opposition to allowing horizontal drilling in the National Forest because of concerns about harm to water quality. The City of Harrisonburg and Staunton have also passed similar resolutions of opposition. 

And to underscore the importance of being cautious about moving forward with 

hydraulic fracturing in this area, the George Washington National Forest protects 

a number of river basins, including the Potomac River that provides the drinking 

water supply for Washington, D.C. Given the local concerns and the unanswered 

questions, the Forest Service is acting responsibly with their proposed EIS while we 

wait for the facts to come in. 

Even if the Forest Service were eventually to decide to prohibit horizontal drilling 

in the George Washington Forest, it would not be a permanent ban. The Forest 

Service has made it clear that if natural gas can be accessed in nearby areas on 

private lands without adverse impacts to water quality, the Service could reconsider 

the issue. 

George Washington is famously quoted as saying, ‘‘I cannot tell a lie.’’ I cannot 

let stand the accusation that the Obama Administration is somehow banning horizontal drilling on public lands based on what is happening in the George Washington National Forest. That could not be further from the truth. 

In the last 20 years, natural gas development on federal lands has more than doubled, from 1.2 trillion cubic feet in 1991 to nearly 3 trillion cubic feet in 2010. Moreover, according to the Bureau of Land Management, 90 percent of new natural gas 

wells on public lands employ hydraulic fracturing. Overall, U.S. natural gas production is at its highest level ever. Those are the facts. And that is the truth. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a Member of 

this Subcommittee and also Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Conservation, Energy, and Forestry on the Agriculture Committee, 

Mr. Thompson, for five minutes for his opening statement. 

6 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GLENN THOMPSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Members Holt and Holden. I appreciate your help and interest in holding this important hearing. 

Since its inception, the National Forest System has been intended for multiple uses. This includes timber harvesting, recreation tourism and, yes, mineral extraction such as oil, gas and coal. 

For an example, I don’t have to look any further than the Allegheny National Forest, which is in the 5th District of Pennsylvania, which I am privileged to represent. 

The world’s oil industry was born there 151 years ago with 

Drake Well and since its founding 64 years later in 1923, oil and 

gas production has continued in the nearby Allegheny National 

Forest. Some will have you believe that natural resource production, whether it is oil, gas, coal or timber, and environmental stewardship are mutually exclusive. Nothing could be farther from the 

truth. 

And for those who think otherwise, I certainly invite them to 

Pennsylvania and the Allegheny National Forest to see for themselves. Through effective management practices, we have successfully produced oil, gas and timber for decades in the ANF while 

protecting our environment. In fact, we boast of having the finest 

hardwoods in the world, and because of their value I believe that 

the ANF is one of the few—perhaps the only—National Forest 

which actually makes money for the Forest Service. 

Because we are blessed with abundant natural resources, Pennsylvania is again returning to its energy roots with the production 

of natural gas from the Marcellus shale field, which many experts 

feel was one of the largest gas plays in the world. The Allegheny 

National Forest is part of that play. 

Through modern technology, especially horizontal drilling and 

hydraulic fracturing, production of oil and natural gas from our 

many shale formations are now possible. In plain English, no fracturing and no horizontal drilling means no natural gas or oil from 

shale and no energy security. 

The Marcellus has brought us upwards of 100,000 new jobs to 

Pennsylvania alone, significant new tax revenues to the state, over 

$200 million to build new roads, none of that with taxpayer dollars, 

and an unimaginable amount of natural gas to the country. After 

only four years of production and being less than 10 percent developed, the Marcellus is already providing the entire Northeast 

United States with over 10 percent of its natural gas. 

Aside from the jobs, both direct and indirect, and the public and 

private revenue it creates, the shale boom is helping to stabilize 

the natural gas market in the United States. Access to affordable 

natural gas directly impacts consumers. Because of the production 

of shale gas brought by the horizontal drilling, our citizens can afford to heat their homes this winter, and the price of many goods 

produced from natural gas saw no increase in cost because of gas 

prices. 

Natural gas, which sold four years ago for a record price of over $13 per thousand cubic feet, has been stabilized to around $4.50. 

7 

Dow Chemical and other petrochemical companies were set to move 

offshore just a few years ago because of high and unsustainable 

natural gas prices in the United States. Fortunately, because of our 

ability to produce shale gas through horizontal drilling and 

hydrofracturing, instead of moving offshore, Dow is now planning 

to expand its operations in the United States. Jobs. 

Make no mistake. Our affordable and predictable natural gas 

prices are a direct result of our ability to produce it through horizontal drilling and hydrofracturing. Without a doubt, development 

will have its challenges, but I am convinced that we can meet these 

challenges and do it effectively as we have for decades. 

Knowing of our need for affordable and reliable energy, which we 

are blessed with in this country, I am extremely concerned about 

the Forest Service placing a moratorium on applications for permits to drill any ‘‘horizontal well and associated hydraulic fracturing.’’ Not only does this undermine the Service’s mission of multiple use, but it also comes at a time when we are becoming more 

dependent on foreign sources and when world energy consumption 

continues to increase while the Federal Government continues to 

stymie development of our own natural resources. 

Let us not forget that oil, gas, coal and all minerals and timber 

on Federal lands are not owned by the Forest Service, but by the 

citizens of our country, who would greatly benefit from their production. Any action to prevent their development should be based 

on sound science and fact, not philosophy and not political agendas. 

The basic question I have regarding the decision by the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service to place or propose a 

moratorium on even processing a permit to drill utilizing hydraulic 

drilling and hydraulic fracturing is when and why did they come 

to the conclusion that these processes should be banned in the forest? Did they perform environmental and economic analyses? Do 

they have any evidence that horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are inherent threats to the forest, human health or our 

water supply? 

It appears to me the Forest Service has no credible reason for 

moving in this direction. Now, I assume the Forest Service witnesses think otherwise and they will present logical, science-based 

facts for their proposed moratorium. I do want to thank our witnesses on this first panel, Director Abbey, Deputy Director Holtrop, 

Director Ferguson and Supervisor Hyzer. We look forward to your 

testimonies and the opportunity to have a productive dialogue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable GT Thompson, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, Committee on Agriculture 

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Members Holt and Holden, I appreciate your help 

and interest in holding this important hearing. 

Since its inception, the National Forest system has been intended for multipleuse. This includes timber harvesting, recreation, tourism—and yes, mineral extraction, such as oil, gas and coal. 

For an example, I don’t have to look any further than the Allegheny National Forest (ANF) which is in the Fifth District of Pennsylvania, which I am privileged to 

represent. 

8 

The world’s oil industry was born there in 152 years ago with Drake well. And 

since its founding 64 years later in 1923, oil and gas production has continued in 

the nearby Allegheny National Forest. 

Some will have you believe that natural resource production—whether it is oil, 

gas, coal or timber—and environmental stewardship are mutually exclusive. Nothing could be farther from the truth and for those who think otherwise, I invite them 

to Pennsylvania and the Allegheny National Forest to see for themselves. 

Through effective management practices, we have successfully produced oil, gas, 

and timber for decades on the ANF, while protecting our environment. In fact, we 

boast of having the finest hardwoods in the world and because of their value; and 

I believe that the ANF is one of few, perhaps the only National Forest which actually makes money for the Forest Service. 

Because we are blessed with abundant natural resources, Pennsylvania is again 

returning to its energy roots with the production of natural gas from the Marcellus 

shale field which many experts feel is one of the largest gas plays in the world. 

The Allegheny National Forest is part of that play. 

Through modern technology, especially horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, production of oil and natural gas from our many shale formations are now 

possible. 

In plain English, no fracturing and horizontal drilling means no natural gas or 

oil from shale and no energy security. 

The Marcellus has brought upwards of 100,000 new jobs to Pennsylvania alone, significant new tax revenues to the state, over $200 million to build new roads, and 

an unimaginable amount of natural gas to the country. 

After only four years of production and being less than 10% developed, the 

Marcellus is already providing the entire northeast U.S. with over of ten percent 

of its natural gas. 

Aside from the jobs—both direct and indirect—and the public and private revenue 

it creates, the shale gas boom is helping to stabilize the natural gas market in the 

United States 

Access to affordable natural gas directly impacts consumers. Because of the production of shale gas brought about by horizontal drilling our citizens could afford 

to heat their homes this winter and the price of many goods produced from natural 

gas saw no increase in cost because of gas prices. Natural gas which sold four years ago for record prices of over $13 per thousand cubic feet has been stabilized to around $4.50. 

Dow Chemical and other petrochemical companies were set to move offshore just 

a few years ago because of high and unstable natural gas prices in the Unites 

States. 

Fortunately, because of our ability to produce shale gas through horizontal drilling and hydro fracturing instead of moving off shore Dow is now planning to expand 

its operations in the U.S. 

Make no mistake: our affordable and predictable natural gas prices are a direct 

result of our ability to produce it though horizontal drilling and hydro fracturing. 

Without a doubt, development will have its challenges—but I am convinced that 

we can meet these challenges and do it effectively as we have for decades. 

Knowing of our need for affordable and reliable energy which we are blessed with 

in this country, I am extremely concerned about the Forest Service placing a moratorium on applications for permits to Drill any ‘‘horizontal well and associated hydraulic fracturing.’’ 

Not only does this undermine the Service’s mission of multiple-use but it also 

comes at a time when we are becoming more dependent on foreign sources and 

when world energy consumption continues to increase, while the Federal government continues to stymie development of our own natural resources. 

Let’s not forget that oil, gas, coal, all minerals and timber on federal lands are 

not owned by the Forest Service but by the citizens of our country who would greatly benefit from their production. 

Any action to prevent that development should be based on sound science and 

fact—not philosophy or political agendas. 

The basic question I have regarding the decision by the Department of Agriculture 

and Forest Service to place a moratorium on even processing a permit to drill utilizing horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is when and why did they come 

to the conclusion that these processes should be banned in the forest? 

Did they perform environmental and economic analyses? Do they have any evidence that horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are inherent threats to the 

forests, human health or our water supply? 

It appears to me that the Forest Service has no credible reason for moving in this 

direction. 

9 

I assume the Forest Service witnesses think otherwise and they will present logical, science based facts for their moratorium. 

I want to thank our witnesses—Director Abbey, Deputy Chief Holtrop, Director 

Ferguson and Supervisor Hyzer. We look forward to your testimonies and the opportunity to have a productive dialogue. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and 

Forestry, Mr. Holden, for five minutes for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TIM HOLDEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

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

our witnesses and guests for being here this morning. 

In times of global economic instability, it is important that the 

United States continue to move toward a secure energy future that 

will have long-lasting economic benefits. This must include safe 

and responsible domestic oil and natural gas production as part of 

a broad energy portfolio. 

While there is currently no ban or moratorium on horizontal 

drilling on Federal lands, a draft management plan by the Forest 

Service proposes to not allow drilling on a parcel of land in the 

George Washington National Forest in Virginia and West Virginia. 

Following normal process for issuance of any forest management 

plan, this draft proposal is currently available for public comment 

and still open for revision. 

Drilling occurs on public lands every day, and over five million 

acres of National Forest lands are currently leased for oil, gas, coal 

and phosphate mining. Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management have responsibilities related to the approval of 

oil and gas leases. 

Though the Forest Service has the option to object and veto a 

plan for a forest plan, more than 7,200 applications for permits to 

drill on public lands and Indian lands are expected to be processed 

this year by BLM, up from approximately 5,000 in 2010. America’s 

public lands and their resources contributed more than $112 billion 

to the U.S. economy and supported more than a half million jobs 

in 2010, the bulk of which came from the management of mineral 

resources and recreation. 

The public lands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service 

are some of the nation’s greatest assets, both environmentally and 

economically. I am hopeful that these agencies realize the economic 

importance of U.S. energy production. 

The natural gas industry has safely and responsibly been operating on taxpayer owned lands for years. This responsible production of domestic fuel creates tens of thousands of jobs, raises more 

revenue each year for American taxpayers than it spends and helps 

stimulate investment and innovation by businesses. 

I look forward to today’s expert testimony and the opportunity to 

listen, learn and question those on the forefront of this important 

issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holden follows:] 

10 

Statement of The Honorable Tim Holden, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, Committee on 

Agriculture 

I would like to thank our witnesses and guests for coming today. In times of global economic instability, it is important that the United States continues to move toward a secure energy future that will have long-lasting economic benefits. This must 

include safe and responsible domestic oil and natural gas production as part of a 

broad energy portfolio. 

While there is currently no ban or moratorium of horizontal drilling on federal 

lands, a draft management plan by the Forest Service proposes to not allow drilling 

on a parcel of land in the George Washington National Forest in Virginia and West 

Virginia. Following normal process for issuance of any forest management plan, this 

draft proposal is currently available for public comment and still open for revision. 

Drilling occurs on public lands every day and over 5 million acres of National Forest Lands are currently leased for oil, gas, coal, and phosphate mining. 

Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have responsibilities related to the approval of oil and gas leases. Though the Forest Service has 

the option to object and veto a plan for forestland, more than 7,200 applications for 

permit to drill on public lands and Indian lands are expected to be processed this 

year by BLM—up from approximately 5,000 in 2010. America’s public lands and their resources contributed more than $112 billion to 

the U.S. economy and supported more than a half-million American jobs in 2010, 

the bulk of which came from the management of mineral resources and recreation. 

The public lands managed by BLM and the Forest Service are some of the nation’s 

greatest assets both environmentally and economically. 

I am hopeful that these agencies realize the economic importance of U.S. energy 

production. The natural gas industry has safely and responsibly been operating on 

taxpayer-owned lands for years. This responsible production of domestic fuel has 

created tens of thousands of jobs, raises more revenue each year for American taxpayers than it spends and helps stimulate investment and innovation by businesses. 

I look forward to today’s expert testimony and the opportunity to listen, learn and 

question those on the forefront of this important issue. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

As each of the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the full committees appear, they will be given an opportunity to make an opening statement. 

I would now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, the 

Ranking Member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. 

Markey, for five minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD J. MARKEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Recent 

advancements in natural gas drilling technologies have unlocked 

natural gas supplies in shale and other unconventional formations 

across the country, leading to a significant expansion of natural gas 

production, including on BLM-managed public lands. Currently 90 

percent of all new wells on public lands are hydraulically fractured. 

To explain the hydraulic fracturing process, the Talisman Energy 

Corporation came up with a cartoon coloring book that follows the 

friendly Frackasaurus named Talisman Terry through the natural 

gas drilling process. The lovable dinosaur playfully promotes the 

benefits of natural gas and paints a picture of a magical world 

filled with smiling rocks and grinning animals. The problem is that 

unless you are a Frackasaurus named Talisman Terry, this world 

does not exist. 

In fact, the word talisman means lucky charm, which is what 

everyone else will need if you listen to Talisman Terry, because in 

11 

the absence of real safety procedures put in place, everyone will 

need a talisman, a lucky charm, an object with magical powers. I 

understand why you would name your corporation that, but I don’t 

think we should base our public health and safety laws upon that 

premise. 

For communities around this country, the expansion of natural 

gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing has meant contamination of 

water supplies, loss of property value, deteriorating health conditions, dead livestock and destruction of pristine forests and agricultural lands. 

A recent series of investigative reports in The New York Times 

have highlighted some of the potential risks of natural gas drilling 

and inconsistent efforts to regulate this booming industry. For example, The Times reported that wastewater from hydraulic fractured wells is often contaminated with toxic heavy metals, highly 

corrosive salts, cancer causing chemicals, such as benzine and 

radioactive elements. 

A large amount of this wastewater is disposed in municipal sewerage treatment plants that are not capable of removing the contaminants. This wastewater discharge can also enter into local waterways, and the equipment failure can cause tens of thousands of 

gallons of chemical wastewater to spew out of the well and into 

nearby creeks. 

These fluids are so toxic that a study by Forest Service researchers published earlier this week found that when fracturing fluids 

were spilled in the forest they killed all plants and trees in the 

area. Without proper oversight, the disposal of drilling wastewater 

poses threats to agricultural lands, aquatic life and human health, 

particularly when public drinking water systems rely on waterways 

where waste is being discharged. 

To further cloud the problem, the oil and gas industry enjoy exemptions or exclusions from key parts of at least seven of the 15 

major Federal environmental laws designed to protect public 

health, air and water, including the Safe Drinking Water Act and 

the Clean Water Act. Many of these companies have also refused 

to disclose the contents of their fracturing fluids. 

A century ago when Congressman Weeks of Massachusetts guided into law the landmark legislation that allowed the lands that 

make up the George Washington National Forest to be purchased 

from private individuals, this protected forestland and habitat for 

hundreds of animals, which drives tourism for the local economy 

and provides a safe source of drinking water to almost 300,000 

local residents. Even more so, although this forest is located in Virginia, it protects the source of water that feeds our faucets right 

here in Washington, D.C. 

While horizontal drilling has never occurred in the George Washington National Forest, expansion of these technologies without 

adequate safety and oversight could threaten natural resources and 

has the potential to turn stretches of forest into lifeless dunes, an 

environment that would only support the imaginary Terry the 

Frackasaurus. 

While the discovery of new gas resources creates a domestic 

energy and economic opportunity and we should try to capture that 

economic opportunity, we must also ensure that this exploration 

12 

and production of natural gas is done safely and responsibly and 

leaves us with a forest full of trees for another century and not a 

chemical wasteland. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Thank you Chairman Hastings. 

Recent advancements in natural gas drilling technologies have unlocked natural 

gas supplies in shale and other unconventional formations across the country leading to a significant expansion of natural gas production, including on BLM-managed 

public lands. Currently 90% of all new wells on public lands are hydraulically fractured. 

To explain the hydraulic fracturing process, Talisman Energy Corporation came 

up with a cartoon coloring book that follows the friendly FRACK–A–SAURUS 

named ‘‘Talisman Terry’’ through the natural gas drilling process. The loveable dinosaur playfully promotes the benefits of natural gas and paints a picture of a magical world filled with smiling rocks and grinning animals. The problem is that unless you are a ‘‘FRACK–A–SAURUS’’ named ‘‘Talisman Terry,’’ this world doesn’t 

exist. For communities around this country the expansion of natural gas drilling 

and hydraulic fracturing has meant contamination of water supplies, loss of property value, deteriorating health conditions, dead livestock, and destruction of pristine forest and agricultural lands. 

A recent series of investigative reports in The New York Times have highlighted 

some of the potential risks of natural gas drilling and inconsistent efforts to regulate 

this booming industry. 

For example, The Times reported that wastewater from hydraulic fractured wells 

is often contaminated with toxic heavy metals, highly corrosive salts, cancer causing 

chemicals such as benzene, and radioactive elements. A large amount of this wastewater is disposed in municipal sewage treatment plants that are not capable of removing the contaminants. This wastewater discharge can also enter into local waterways as was the case in Pennsylvania, 3 months ago, when equipment failure 

caused tens of thousands of gallons of chemical-laced water to spew out of the well 

and into a nearby creek. 

These fluids are so toxic that a study by Forest Service researchers, published 

earlier this week, found that when fracturing fluids were spilled in the forest they 

killed all plants and trees in the area. 

Without proper oversight, the disposal of drilling wastewater poses threats to agricultural lands, aquatic life and human health, particularly when public drinking 

water systems rely on waterways where waste is being discharged. 

To further cloud the problem, the oil and gas industry enjoy exemptions or exclusions from key parts of at least 7 of the 15 major federal environmental laws designed to protect public health, air and water, including the Safe Drinking Water 

Act and the Clean Water Act. Many of these companies have also refused to disclose 

the contents of their fracturing fluids. 

A century ago, Rep. Weeks of Massachusetts guided into law the landmark legislation that allowed the lands that make up the George Washington National Forest 

to be purchased from private individuals. This protected forestland is habitat for 

hundreds of animals, drives tourism for the local economy, and provides a safe 

source of drinking water to almost 300,000 local residents. Even more so, although 

this forest is located in Virginia, it protects the source of water that feeds our faucets right here in Washington, DC. 

While horizontal drilling has never occurred in the George Washington National 

Forest expansion of these technologies without adequate safety and oversight could 

threaten natural resources and has the potential to turn stretches of forest into lifeless dunes—An environment that would only support the imaginary Terry the 

FRACK–A–SAURUS. 

While the discovery of new gas resources creates a domestic energy and economic 

opportunity, we must ensure that this exploration and production for natural gas 

is done safely and responsibly and leaves us with a forest full of trees for another 

century and not a chemical wasteland. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

13 

We will now hear from our witnesses. I would like to invite forward The Honorable Bob Abbey, Director of the Bureau of Land 

Management; The Honorable Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief of the 

U.S. Forest Service, accompanied by Mr. Tony Ferguson, Director 

of Minerals and Geology Management, USDA Forest Service, and 

Ms. Maureen Hyzer, Forest Supervisor of the George Washington 

and Jefferson National Forests. 

Thank you all for being here. Like all our witnesses, your written 

testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, so I ask that 

you keep your oral statements to five minutes as outlined in our 

invitation letter to you and under Committee Rule 4(a). Our microphones are not automatic, so you need to turn them on when you 

are ready to begin talking. 

I also want to explain how the timing lights work. When you 

begin, the clerk will start the clock and a green light will appear. 

After four minutes a yellow light will appear, and after five minutes the red light comes on. At that point I would ask you to conclude. 

Mr. Abbey, you may begin. Thank you all for being here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BOB ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. ABBEY. Thank you. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, once again it is my honor to appear before the Members 

here to talk about the BLM’s role in the responsible development 

of oil and gas resources from our public lands and the Federal onshore mineral estate. 

Because there is no BLM ban on directional drilling, my testimony today is intended to provide an overview of our oil and gas 

leasing program and policies, which include implementing leasing 

reforms, planning for development in the National Petroleum 

Reserve in Alaska, continuing timely processing of drilling permits, 

improving inspection, enforcement and production accountability 

and reviewing hydraulic fracturing policies and practices. 

Secretary of the Interior Salazar has emphasized that as we 

move toward the new energy frontier, conventional energy resources from BLM-managed public lands will continue to play a 

critical role in leading the nation’s energy needs. Facilitating the 

efficient, responsible development of domestic oil and gas resources 

is part of this Administration’s broad energy strategy that will protect consumers, help reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create 

well paying jobs and provide revenues and economic activity to 

communities. 

In Fiscal Year 2010, more than 114 million barrels of oil were 

produced from the BLM-managed mineral estate, the most since 

1997. Also in 2010, the nearly three trillion cubic feet of natural 

gas produced from public lands made it the second most productive 

year on record. Federal oil and gas royalties in 2010 exceeded $2.5 

billion, half of which were paid directly to the states where the development occurred. 

Leasing reforms that the Bureau of Land Management put in 

place in May of 2010 established an orderly, open and environmentally sound process for developing oil and gas resources on pubVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
14 

lic lands. These reforms focused on making oil and gas leasing 

more predictable, increasing certainty for stakeholders, including 

the industry, and restoring needed balance with comprehensive, 

up-front analysis added to the process. 

In the 23 million acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, the 

BLM has an active leasing program underway. Over 1.6 million 

acres are currently under lease in that area. The BLM has offered 

six lease sales in the NPRA over the last 12 years. We plan to hold 

a lease sale in December of 2011 and each year thereafter. 

Through careful planning, the BLM’s leasing program in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska ensures that exploration and 

development of its oil and natural gas resource is done in a manner 

that protects wildlife and habitat and honors the subsistence values of Alaskan natives and rural residents. The BLM continues 

processing applications from industry for permits to drill on Federal and Indian lands. So far this year, the BLM received over 

2,600 applications for permits to drill and processed over 2,800. 

We recognize that oil and gas development is a market driven activity. It is industry’s choice as to when or even whether to start 

drilling a well within the two-year period after an application for 

drilling has been approved. As of June 1, industry has not yet 

started drilling on nearly 7,100 applications for permits to drill 

that have already been approved by the Bureau of Land Management. 

To improve inspection, enforcement and production accountability, we have developed a strong technical certification program 

for all of our oil and gas field inspectors. Our personnel completed 

over 31,000 inspections in Fiscal Year 2010. These inspections ensure that lessees meet environmental and safety requirements and 

that the reported oil and gas volumes match the actual production 

on the ground. 

Recently we have seen increasing interest in the use of hydraulic 

fracturing techniques to stimulate natural gas production. The 

BLM is proactively engaging the public, states and industry on this 

issue. In April of 2011, the BLM held a series of regional public 

forums on the use of hydraulic fracturing. Over 600 members of the 

public participated in these forums. 

Consistent with the framework presented by the President’s 

Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, the BLM is working to ensure that the potential oil and natural gas development on our public lands is realized. 

Mr. Chairman, again it is a pleasure for me to be here, and I 

would be happy to answer any questions that the Members might 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey follows:] 

Statement of Robert Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear here today to discuss the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) role in 

the Administration’s efforts to facilitate the responsible development of oil and gas 

resources from our public lands and Federal onshore mineral estate. With respect 

to the title of this oversight hearing, I note for the record that the BLM has no ban 

on directional drilling and, as a matter of policy, the Bureau generally encourages 

its use where appropriate to protect sensitive surface resources. Because there is no 

15 

BLM ban on directional drilling, my testimony will provide an overview of the 

BLM’s oil and gas program and policies. 

The BLM, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department), is responsible for protecting the resources and managing the uses of our nation’s public 

lands, which are located primarily in 12 western states, including Alaska. The BLM 

administers more land—over 245 million surface acres—than any other Federal 

agency. The BLM manages approximately 700 million acres of onshore subsurface 

mineral estate throughout the Nation, and provides Indian fiduciary services. We 

work closely with surface management agencies in the management of this subsurface mineral estate. 

Background 

Secretary Salazar has emphasized that as we move toward the new energy frontier, the development of conventional energy resources from BLM-managed public 

lands will continue to play a critical role in meeting the Nation’s energy needs. The 

BLM strives to achieve a balance between oil and gas production and protection of 

the environment. Facilitating the efficient, responsible development of domestic oil 

and gas resources is part of the Administration’s broad energy strategy that will 

protect consumers and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Well-paying jobs 

are often associated with oil and gas exploration and development, and provide 

needed revenues and economic activity to communities. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, 

onshore Federal oil and gas royalties exceeded $2.5 billion, approximately half of 

which was paid directly to the states in which the development occurred. 

The BLM is working diligently to fulfill its part in securing America’s energy future. In addition to actively supporting the development of renewable energy resources, the BLM currently manages more than 40 million acres of onshore oil and 

gas leases. In FY 2010, onshore oil production from public lands increased by 5 million barrels from the previous fiscal year as more than 114 million barrels of oil 

were produced from the BLM-managed mineral estate—the most since FY 1997. 

Meanwhile, the nearly 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas produced from public lands 

made 2010 the second-most productive year of natural gas production on record. In 

2010, conventional energy development from public lands produced 14.1 percent of 

the Nation’s natural gas, and 5.7 percent of its domestically produced oil. 

In achieving these production milestones, the BLM is working on a variety of 

fronts to ensure that development is done efficiently and responsibly—including implementing leasing reforms; carefully planning for development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR–A); continuing to process drilling permits in a 

timely fashion; improving inspection, enforcement, and production accountability; 

pursuing royalty reforms; and reviewing hydraulic fracturing policies and practices. 

Leasing Reforms 

Current and future lease sales are benefitting from much-needed reforms that the 

BLM put in place in May of 2010. In the decade between 1998 and 2009, the percentage of leases protested jumped from 1 percent to 49 percent. The BLM was investing vast amounts of staff time and attention in defending time-consuming and 

costly lawsuits, and revisiting the leasing process after receiving direction from the 

courts. The result of these challenges was judicial restraints on development, job 

loss, and diminished access to energy resources. 

In our leasing reforms, the BLM decided to take a front-loaded approach, offering 

an increased opportunity for public participation and a more thorough environmental review process and documentation. The reforms enhance the BLM’s ability 

to resolve protests prior to lease sales. Using these methodologies in Wyoming, the 

BLM in the first quarter of FY 2011 was able to resolve many protested leases and 

released monies held in escrow due to the protests. 

The BLM reforms established a more orderly, open, and environmentally sound 

process for developing oil and gas resources on public lands. They focus on making 

oil and gas leasing more predictable, increasing certainty for stakeholders including 

industry, and restoring needed balance with comprehensive up front analysis added 

to the development process. These reforms require adequate planning and analysis 

to identify potential areas where the leasing would not compromise the BLM’s 

multiple-use land management mission, and include: 

• Engaging the public in the development of Master Leasing Plans prior to leasing in certain areas where resource conflicts are known to exist and where 

significant new oil and gas development is anticipated. The intent is to fully 

consider other important natural resource values before making a decision on 

leasing and development in an area; 

• Ensuring potential lease sales are fully coordinated both internally and externally, including public participation, and interdisciplinary review of available 

16 

information, as well as on-site visits to parcels prior to leasing when necessary to supplement or validate existing data; and • Requiring an ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ review screen before applying the 

categorical exclusions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to oil and gas drilling 

activities on BLM lands. This, as well as the other reforms identified above, 

are helping to provide increased rigor on the front end of the leasing process 

so that leases will be better able to withstand outside scrutiny—ultimately 

making the development process more efficient. 

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR–A) 

Through a careful public planning process, the BLM has in place an active leasing 

program in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR–A)—a nearly 23 million-acre area on the north slope of Alaska. In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that 896 million barrels of conventional, undiscovered oil and 53 trillion cubic 

feet of conventional, undiscovered gas were within NPR–A and adjacent State 

waters. The BLM has offered lease sales in the NPR–A in 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 

2008, and 2010, and over 1.6 million acres are currently under lease in the area. 

In December 2011, the BLM plans to conduct a lease sale of additional tracts, and 

expects to hold a lease sale in 2012 and each year thereafter. The BLM’s leasing 

program in the NPR–A ensures that safe and responsible exploration and development of domestic oil and natural gas resources can be done in a manner that also 

protects wildlife and habitat, and honors the subsistence values of Alaska Natives 

and rural residents. Further, the Bureau is engaged in a planning process for the 

entire NPRA that should help identify long-term leasing and infrastructure goals (to 

support both onshore and offshore oil and gas development) as well as resource conservation goals. 

Permitting 

Prior to the drilling of a well, BLM is required to process applications for permit 

to drill (APDs). The BLM processed over 5,200 such permits in Fiscal Year 2010. 

As of June 1, 2011, the BLM has received 2,688 APDs (Federal and Indian lands), 

and has processed 2,885 APDs (Federal and Indian lands). About 7,080 APDs on 

BLM and Indian lands have been approved by BLM, but not yet drilled by industry. 

Historically, BLM’s experience has been that that demand for drilling permits is a 

function of market conditions and national energy consumption, and we expect the 

numbers of APDs received to increase as the economy continues to improve. 

Inspection, Enforcement, & Production Accountability 

Of paramount importance, the BLM is committed to ensuring oil and gas production is carried out in a responsible manner. We continue to work to strengthen our 

oil and gas inspection, enforcement, and production accountability program. As part 

of this effort, the BLM has developed a strong technical certification program for 

all of our oil and gas field inspectors, who completed over 31,000 inspections in FY 

2010. These inspections ensure that lessees meet important environmental and safety requirements, and that the reported oil and gas volumes match the actual production on-the-ground. The BLM also has begun using a risk-based inspection strategy for production inspections, inspecting first those leases that present the highest 

risk according to the strategy. The BLM plans to expand this risk-based strategy 

to the other types of inspections it performs with the goal of maximizing the efficient use of inspection staff to meet inspection goals and requirements. 

Royalty Reform 

The Administration believes that American taxpayers should receive a fair return 

on the development of energy resources on their public lands. A 2008 Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) report suggests that taxpayers could be receiving a better return from Federal oil and gas resources in some areas. Subsequent GAO reports have reiterated this conclusion. The BLM and the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement are cooperating to pursue an international study of approaches to oil and gas revenue collection. The study should be 

completed and published later this year. 

Hydraulic Fracturing 

The use of hydraulic fracturing techniques to stimulate natural gas production on 

Federal lands has been the subject of increasing interest in the past few years. The 

Department has been monitoring the developments around hydraulic fracturing and 

proactively engaging the public, states, and industry on this important topic. 

As part of the Department’s proactive efforts to ensure that oil and gas development is taking place on public lands in a responsible and environmentally sustainable manner, the BLM held a series of regional public forums in April 2011 to disVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
17 

cuss the use of hydraulic fracturing. The sessions were held in North Dakota, Colorado, and Arkansas—states that have experienced significant increases in natural 

gas development on Federal lands or on leases issued by the BLM. 

The forums provided attendees with an introduction to the hydraulic fracturing 

process and the relevant BLM regulatory authorities. Attendees also heard presentations from state oil and gas regulators, state water regulators, oil and gas industry representatives, environmental organizations, sportsmen’s groups, landowner 

groups, tribal representatives, and academics. Over 600 members of the public attended and participated in the forums. Issues raised by members of the public and 

panel members included best management practices, disclosure of the chemicals 

used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, well construction and integrity, production 

wastewater management, and other techniques for protecting drinking water resources. As you may know, other agencies are also actively engaged on this issue. Earlier 

this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commenced a four-year Congressionally-mandated study of hydraulic fracturing. In addition, the Secretary of 

Energy’s Advisory Board Subcommittee on Hydraulic Fracturing is currently developing initial recommendations on hydraulic fracturing, and the BLM looks forward 

to reviewing its recommendations. 

Conclusion 

Consistent with the framework presented by the President’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, the BLM is working to secure our energy future by ensuring 

the potential oil and natural gas development on our public lands is realized. We 

are pursuing the safe, responsible, and efficient development of these energy resources here at home. 

The BLM is committed to encouraging responsible energy development on the 

public lands and to ensuring that the American people receive a fair return for the 

public’s resources. We are mindful of our responsibility for stewardship of natural 

resources and public assets that generate substantial revenue from Federal onshore 

oil and gas royalties directed to the U.S. Treasury and to the states. Mr. Chairmen, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on the BLM’s oil and gas program policies 

and activities. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for your testimony. We would like to 

now hear from the next witness, Mr. Holtrop. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY 

CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY TONY FERGUSON, DIRECTOR, MINERALS AND GEOLOGY MANAGEMENT, USDA FOREST SERVICE, AND MAUREEN HYZER, 

SUPERVISOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON 

NATIONAL FORESTS 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today on challenges facing domestic oil and gas development. 

Accompanying me today are Tony Ferguson, our Director of Minerals and Geology Management, and Maureen Hyzer, Supervisor of 

the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. 

To begin, I want to be clear. The U.S. Forest Service has no policy, nor do we have any plans to develop any policy, to ban horizontal drilling and the associated hydraulic fracturing. I also want 

to emphasize that forest plans are place-based plans based on local 

community concerns which we take very seriously. 

The Forest Service is committed to doing our part to contribute 

to the nation’s energy goals, while at the same time protecting the 

landscapes and watersheds that are precious to so many. The 

Forest Service and the BLM work closely in managing and delivering the mineral and energy programs in the United States. The 

agencies follow congressionally authorized mandates that allow for 

the responsible development of domestic energy and mineral resources. 

18 

Generally speaking, the Forest Service manages the surface National Forest System lands while the BLM manages the subsurface. 

The BLM issues leases for exploration and development of energy 

minerals after receiving consent from the Forest Service for leasing 

those National Forest System lands. 

The Forest Service bases its decision on whether to consent to 

leasing on guidance provided in our forest plans. Forest plans guide 

the management of National Forest System lands and are developed in an open process gathering input from local and state government, interest groups and private citizens. In the forest planning process, the agency strives to balance resource development 

with protecting the landscapes and watersheds that communities 

depend upon. 

The current oil and gas production on National Forest System 

lands is sizable. 16.7 million barrels of oil and 194 million cubic 

feet of natural gas were produced in 2010 from almost 3,200 Federal wells on National Forest System lands. In addition, there are 

almost 12,800 additional wells located on National Forest System 

lands where the subsurface is privately owned, the majority of 

which are located on the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. 

In Fiscal Year 2010, production from Federal wells alone gen- erated an estimated $361 million in payments to the U.S. Treasury. A large portion of this revenue is returned to states and counties. The Forest Service is committed to providing these energy resources and their benefits to the American people in a way that is 

consistent with our mission to safeguard the health, diversity and 

productivity of our nation’s forests and grasslands. 

We understand that some Members of the Subcommittees are 

concerned about the Draft Forest Plan for the George Washington 

National Forest in Northern Virginia and West Virginia that proposes several options for public comment. The preferred option provides for oil and gas leasing, but would prohibit horizontal drilling 

and associated hydraulic fracturing in certain areas of the forest. 

This draft plan includes several alternatives which would allow for 

horizontal drilling. 

We will carefully consider all public comments prior to the regional forester making a final decision in the George Washington 

National Forest plan. The Forest Service is accepting comments on 

the draft Forest Plan through September 1. As with all our forest 

plans, this plan is place specific based on the particular circumstances of the George Washington National Forest and does not 

represent a broader policy with regard to hydraulic fracturing. 

There are no Forest Service discussions or efforts underway to 

develop a national policy to ban horizontal drilling. On the contrary, the Administration believes that the recent technological advances that have allowed industry to access abundant reserves of 

natural gas, particularly from shale formations, provides enormous 

potential benefits to the country as long as it is done in a way that 

protects public health and the environment. 

The Environmental Protection Agency is currently studying potential impacts to water resources from hydraulic fracturing, and 

a subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board is developing recommendations on practices and steps that can be taken to 

19 

improve the safety and environmental performance of shale extraction. The Forest Service will move forward to allow the safe and 

responsible development of domestic oil and gas resources consistent with the expert recommendations from these and other efforts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information about the 

oil and gas program on the National Forests and clarify the situation related to horizontal drilling and associated hydraulic fracturing. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:] 

Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, 

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Chairman Lamborn, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Holden, Ranking 

Member Holt and members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to 

provide testimony today on ‘‘Challenges Facing Domestic Oil and Gas Development: 

A Review of Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Forest Service Ban on Horizontal 

Drilling on Federal Lands.’’ I am Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief of the National Forest 

System. Accompanying me today is Tony Ferguson, Director of Minerals and Geology Management and Maureen Hyzer, Supervisor of the George Washington and 

Jefferson National Forests. 

To begin, I want to be clear, the U.S. Forest has no policy nor do we have any 

plans to develop any policy to ban horizontal drilling and the associated hydraulic 

fracturing. I also want to emphasize that Forest Plans are place based plans, based 

on local community concerns which we take very seriously. 

We would like to first describe the role of the U.S. Forest Service in oil and gas 

leasing and operations on National Forest System (NFS) Lands, then provide the 

committees with an overall scope of the oil and gas program on the NFS lands, and 

finally directly address concerns regarding horizontal drilling which have prompted 

this hearing. The Forest Service is committed to doing our part to contribute to the 

nation’s energy goals while at the same time protecting the landscapes and watersheds that are precious to so many. 

The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) work closely in 

managing and delivering the mineral and energy program in the United States. The 

agencies follow Congressionally authorized mandates that allow for the responsible 

development of domestic energy and mineral resources. Generally speaking, the Forest Service manages the surface of National Forest System lands while the BLM 

manages the subsurface. The BLM issues leases for exploration and development of 

energy minerals after receiving consent from the Forest Service for leasing those 

NFS lands. The Forest Service bases its decision on whether to consent to leasing 

on guidance provided in our Forest Plans. Forest Plans guide the management of 

NFS lands and are developed in an open process, gathering input from local and 

state government, interest groups and private citizens. In the Forest Planning process, the agency strives to balance resource development with protecting the landscapes and watersheds that communities depend upon. Subsequently, when a request for an oil and gas drilling permit is received by BLM on NFS lands where 

leasing has been approved, the Forest Service and BLM coordinate the development 

of the conditions for issuing the permit, using their separate authorities for surface 

and subsurface management. 

The current oil and gas production on NFS lands is sizeable. 16.7 million barrels 

of oil and 194 million cubic feet of natural gas were produced in 2010 from almost 

3,200 ‘‘federal’’ wells on NFS lands (lands where the subsurface is part of the federal 

estate). In addition, there are almost 12,800 additional wells located on NFS lands 

where the subsurface is privately owned, the majority of which are located on the 

Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, production 

from ‘‘federal wells’’ generated an estimated $361 million in bonus and royalty payments to the U.S. Treasury. A large portion of this revenue will be returned to 

states and counties, specifically 25% of the revenue from Acquired Lands, 25% of 

the revenue from National Grasslands, and 50% of the revenue from Public Domain 

Lands will be returned to the states and counties. The Forest Service is committed 

to providing these energy resources and their benefits to the American people in a 

way that is consistent with our mission to safeguard the health, diversity and productivity of our nation’s forests and grasslands. 

We understand that some members of the Subcommittees are concerned about direction in the draft Forest Plan for the George Washington National Forest (GWNF) 

20 

in western Virginia that proposes several options for public comment, one of which 

is a preferred option that provides for oil and gas leasing but would prohibit horizontal drilling and associated hydraulic fracturing in certain areas of the forest. 

Specifically, we understand that members of the Subcommittee have concerns regarding agency jurisdiction, potential impacts of drilling to resources such as 

groundwater, and decisions which would restrict the ability of the Forest Service to 

contribute to meeting the nation’s energy demands. 

This draft plan was developed through an open and collaborative process with a 

diversity of stakeholders, including local governments and private citizens. It includes several alternatives besides the draft plan, several of which would allow for 

horizontal drilling. We are currently working to clarify the roles of our respective 

agencies in oil and gas development and will carefully consider all public comments 

prior to making a final decision in the George Washington National Forest Plan. 

The Forest Service is accepting comments on the Draft Forest Plan through September 1, 2011. As I noted earlier, this plan is place-specific based on the particular 

circumstances of the GWNF, and does not represent a broader policy with regard 

to hydraulic fracturing. There are no Forest Service discussions or efforts underway 

to develop a national policy to ban horizontal drilling. On the contrary, the Administration believes that the recent technological advancements that have allowed industry to access abundant reserves of natural gas, particularly from shale formations, provides enormous potential benefits to the country, as long as it is done in 

a way that protects public health and the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently studying potential impacts to water resources from hydraulic fracturing, and a subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board is developing recommendations on practices and steps that can be taken to improve the 

safety and environmental performance of shale extraction. The Forest Service will 

move forward to allow the safe and responsible development of domestic oil and gas 

resources consistent with the expert recommendations from these and other efforts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information about the oil and gas program on the National Forests and clarify the situation related to horizontal drilling 

and associated hydraulic fracturing. I look forward to answering any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. LAMBORN. All right. Thank you both for your testimony. 

A housekeeping note. We will soon be going to the Floor as they 

call votes, and it will be a lengthy series of votes. So when that 

time happens, I will remind everyone that we will have to leave 

and I will set a time for us to come back, hopefully giving some certainty for everyone’s schedule who are here today, especially those 

of you who are witnesses. 

In fact, they have just called votes. I think we have time to do 

the first couple sets of questions for approximately 10 minutes, two 

sets of five-minute questions. Then we are going to recess the Subcommittee and we will set a time for coming back. So thank you 

for your patience. I wish this didn’t happen, but we don’t have any 

control over that part of our schedule. 

Ms. Hyzer, as we have all read this morning—by the way, each 

Member will be recognized for five minutes for questions, and I will 

open up. 

Ms. Hyzer, as we have read this morning, our national unemployment, unfortunately, has risen to 9.2 percent in June with only 

18,000 jobs generated nationwide last month. When you decided to 

include a horizontal drilling ban in your draft Forest Plan, did you 

consult with the Commonwealth of Virginia, or anyone else for that 

matter, on the impact that that would have on existing and future 

job growth in the energy development sector? 

Ms. HYZER. Congressman, first of all I would like to thank you 

for asking me to this hearing and giving me the opportunity to answer questions about the Forest Plan. We are in a draft comment 

period, and I want to let you know that the testimony and stateVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
21 

ments that are made today, the transcript will be taken into consideration as part of the planning record. 

In answer to your question, early on we understood and believed 

that energy development was very important in Virginia, and that 

is why we decided to go ahead and address the need to make lands 

available for oil and gas leasing, so that was a very important consideration for us. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Specifically, I asked did job growth or job creation 

factor in at all to your decision-making process thus far? 

Ms. HYZER. We understood the relationship of energy development and jobs in Virginia, yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So you are saying you did take that into account? 

Ms. HYZER. We will continue to take that into account, and we 

welcome additional information on that subject through the comment period that we can take into account in the final decision. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Did you seek to find out if there was any horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing in any nearby public lands 

that may have been done in a safe and proper manner? 

Ms. HYZER. In Virginia, there has yet to be any hydraulic fracturing done in the Marcellus shale in Virginia, so we did not have 

information available to us as to what the impacts would be. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And anywhere else in the country, even farther 

distances away? Did you look at—— 

Ms. HYZER. This was a local base. 

Mr. LAMBORN.—what I think is a good safety record of hydraulic 

fracturing and horizontal drilling? 

Ms. HYZER. This was a local base plan and so we focused our 

analysis and our information gathering on Virginia. That is what 

our focus was, a local base. It is a community-based plan. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

Chief Holtrop, a recent study estimated that development of the 

Marcellus shale added over 44,000 new jobs in Pennsylvania, $389 

million in state and local tax revenue, over $1 billion in Federal tax 

revenue and nearly $4 billion in value added to the state’s economy. 

Similarly, in West Virginia it created over 13,000 new jobs and 

contributed over $220 million in Federal, state and local tax revenue and almost $1 billion added to the state’s economy. 

When proposing possible job-killing regulations or administrative 

actions, do you do a cost/benefit analysis on the outcomes of local 

job growth and revenues? 

Mr. HOLTROP. We do take into account the economic impacts and 

the implications of decisions that we make. Again, I would like to 

stress there have been no decisions made in the George Washington National Forest plan. It is a draft that is open for public 

comment at this time. 

But in the analysis of that or any other forest plan process that 

we go through, yes, one of the things that we take into account are 

the economic opportunities that are presented by the opportunities 

to do resource extraction or recreational opportunities. That is one 

of the things that we take into account, just as we take into account the environmental consequences or the concerns over the use 

of water or the concerns with water, et cetera. 

22 

I think another demonstration of the importance of the jobs and 

economics is in the draft Forest Plan for the George Washington. 

The proposal is to open nearly a million acres of the George Washington National Forest to oil and gas leasing. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

At this point I will yield back the remaining time and I will recognize the Ranking Member for any questions he may have for five 

minutes. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Abbey, let me begin with you. Much of the concern about hydraulic fracturing fluids have related to the types of chemicals that 

are pumped into the ground and then come back out of the ground 

sometimes with added contaminants, including naturally occurring 

radioactive materials. 

It has been reported that wastewater from hydraulically fractured wells in Pennsylvania and West Virginia have been sent to 

sewage plants that were not able to remove the radioactive contaminants—even though the levels were as high as 2,000 times 

EPA’s drinking water standards and the radioactive water was released into waterways as it was reported. 

As a requirement for drilling permits on Federal lands, does the 

BLM require assurance that radioactive wastewater will not be 

dumped into rivers or onto public lands? 

Mr. ABBEY. Congressman Holt, certainly water management is a 

big concern for all of us when we are addressing—— 

Mr. HOLT. But specifically radioactivity as we are talking about 

here. 

Mr. ABBEY. The Bureau of Land Management issues our authorizations based upon the applicant being able to produce a permit 

from the authorizing local community or the authorizing officials 

within—— 

Mr. HOLT. So it goes to the state or local officials? 

Mr. ABBEY. We defer to the state. 

Mr. HOLT. This is not a BLM criteria? 

Mr. ABBEY. Exactly. Exactly. 

Mr. HOLT. As a requirement for drilling permits on Federal 

lands, does the Bureau require any radiological monitoring of drilling wastes for protection of either the public or the workers? 

Mr. ABBEY. Again, we would defer back to the state or local government officials who have that responsibility. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. In light of recent developments, do you plan to 

revise your regulations to ensure that drilling wastes are handled 

in a manner that doesn’t lead to public or worker exposures to radioactivity? 

Mr. ABBEY. Our current regulations addressing hydraulic fracturing on public lands and Federal minerals are 30 years old. We 

are currently reviewing those regulations to determine what, if 

any, changes we would like to make and pursue any new rulemaking that may be required. 

Mr. HOLT. Yes. I hope you pursue that aggressively because, yes, 

fracturing has been used for decades on a very small scale, but on 

this scale this is new and so I hope you will pursue that. 

Mr. Holtrop, NEPA. One of the best features of the environmental protection law is it provides for American citizens to have 

23 

input into the planning process, which was something that was 

lacking in previous decades. How did the Forest Service engage 

local stakeholders in the planning process? 

In particular I am interested in the consideration. You were talking about economic considerations. I am particularly interested in 

the consideration of agricultural jobs. Are you getting good input 

on that aspect? 

Let me interrupt you for just a moment. In my opening statement I commented that several agriculturally intensive counties 

had issued public objections. 

Mr. HOLTROP. The process that the George Washington National 

Forest has gone through, as well as the process that occurs across 

the country during these forest planning processes, is very much, 

as you indicated, a public process, and we consider that one of the 

real positive benefits of the approach that we take to get that type 

of input. 

In the case of the George Washington National Forest, we did 

have public meetings through the area, the communities affected 

and interested in the George Washington. There are letters that we 

have received from three of the counties in the George Washington 

and two of the cities associated with the George Washington all requesting that the Forest Service take a hard look at, or in some 

cases, ask us to not allow horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing, et cetera. 

So taking those into account is one of those. Not the only consideration, but certainly one of the considerations that we would expect our local managers to do as they are determining what is the 

right course of action on a forest planning process. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. And just a quick question, Mr. Abbey. Under the 

Mineral Leasing Act, isn’t it correct that no gas deposit shall be 

leased except with the consent of the surface managing agency? 

Mr. ABBEY. That is true. 

Mr. HOLT. And that would be who? 

Mr. ABBEY. In the case of the George Washington it would be the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Ranking member. We now 

will be in recess until 12:30. I don’t have a crystal ball to know exactly when our vote series will finish. It is a lengthy vote series. 

The good news? It is the only one of the day. 

But to give certainty for all of you who came here, and we appreciate it, to give your testimony, as well as any other concerned citizens, we thought it would be good to give a time certain for reconvening so that you will know we won’t be here any time before 

that. 

So we will reconvene at 12:30, and the Subcommittee will now 

be in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. The Subcommittee will please come back to order. 

Thank you all for your patience. We did finish that lengthy vote 

series, and we are ready to get back into this important topic. 

The first panel is still seated. We appreciate your being here. We 

will get to the second panel as soon as we can. The next set of 

24 

questions for up to five minutes is with Representative Thompson 

of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn. I appreciate 

your assistance in coordinating this hearing. 

First of all, I want to ask permission to submit for the record and 

peace of mind for the Ranking Member of the Natural Resource 

Committee, who made some remarks regarding the radioactivity in 

the region regarding Marcellus shale and horizontal drilling. 

This is an article, June 21, 2011, that reports on a March study 

that was done by the Department of Environmental Protection in 

Pennsylvania that showed no radioactive contaminants in water 

used and produced in western Pennsylvania where we do a lot of 

horizontal drilling, so with your permission I would like to submit 

that for the record. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Without objection. So ordered. 

[The June 21, 2011, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article follows:] 

Public water safe from radioactivity throughout region 

By Timothy Puko, 

PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE–REVIEW 

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 

A battery of tests has showed no radioactive contaminants in the water used and 

produced at 12 of 14 drinking water suppliers in Western Pennsylvania, according 

to state environmental regulators. 

Wastewater treatment plants and drinking water suppliers performed extra tests 

throughout March, reacting to media reports that questioned whether an increase 

in Marcellus shale drilling had led to the introduction of radioactive chemicals into 

public water. 

Industry spokesmen said the negative tests are further proof this isn’t happening 

and that water is safe. 

Of the 12 drinking water suppliers, only The Tri-County Joint Municipal Authority in Fredericktown reported any traces of radium-228 at all, and it was 80 percent 

below the maximum amount allowed, said Katy Gresh, spokeswoman at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

The department is still pursuing test results from two other suppliers, the 

Carmichaels and Newell municipal authorities, she added. 

‘‘These test results are confirmation that safe, clean drinking water and responsible shale gas development can and do coexist,’’ said Patrick Creighton, spokesman 

at the Marcellus Shale Coalition. 

Only six of the 14 drinking water plants submitted test results on dissolved solids 

and other secondary contaminants. Levels did meet pollution standards, Gresh said, 

noting the department still is pursuing the other results. The state also has asked 

25 wastewater treatment plants for results, which weren’t immediately available. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I want to first of all thank the panel for being 

here and for your testimony. I want to start with Mr. Holtrop with 

Forest Service. 

Mr. Holtrop, on page 1 of your testimony you state that, and I 

am quoting, ‘‘U.S. Forest Service has no policy, nor do we have any 

plans to develop any policy, to ban horizontal drilling and the associated hydraulic fracturing.’’ 

I am looking for a yes or no answer to the following question. 

Does the Forest Service have a draft EIS dated April 2011 that 

states, ‘‘The surface management agency (USDA-Forest Service) 

has a moratorium on processing surface use plan of operations of 

an application for permit to drill for any horizontal well and associated hydraulic fracturing. The moratorium will end May 1, 2013.’’ 

Is that correct that that exists? 

25 

Mr. HOLTROP. Could you tell me what the title of that EIS is? 

I am not familiar with it by date. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I sure can. I am reading it from the Federal Oil 

and Gas Leasing Stipulations, Appendix 1, Draft EIS, George 

Washington National Forest, April 2011, Section 1. My quote comes 

from Section 1. It is very prominent in the document. Horizontal 

Drilling Moratorium Stipulation. 

Mr. HOLTROP. So is this the George Washington Forest Plan document that you are referring to? 

Mr. THOMPSON. George Washington is noted on here in the heading. 

Mr. HOLTROP. OK. So what that is, it is an alternative in our 

draft Forest Plan amongst several alternatives that we are considering. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I am trying to just figure out in my own mind 

then. So this wasn’t an internal exercise? It was something that 

was a proposal being considered? And yet in your testimony you 

said, ‘‘nor do we have any plans to develop any policy.’’ 

Mr. HOLTROP. Correct. What I am referring to, there is no policy. 

The title of the hearing had to do with a policy on a Forest Service 

ban on horizontal drilling on Federal lands. 

My statement was intended to assure you that there is no intent 

for us to develop a policy nationwide, broadly. What we are talking 

about on the George Washington is a very site specific, locally driven analysis, and there are a range of alternatives that we are looking for on the George Washington. 

Mr. THOMPSON. It still sounds contradicting. I did take from your 

opening testimony and Mr. Abbey’s that, frankly, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is something that is embraced, and I 

just find this—you know, I assume that even the consideration of 

this, which really is developing a policy. You know, you are developing alternatives for a policy you are in the process of developing, 

which really contradicts your testimony. 

The potential for a moratorium was prompted by a specific occurrence in the National Forests of environmental degradation or 

damage from horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. That is 

what I am assuming. Were environmental and economic assessments conducted by the Forest Service prompting the proposed 

moratorium proposal or options or whatever we want to call it? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Yes. There is environmental analysis. There has 

been public input. We looked at all the available science that we 

had available to us that led to the range of alternatives that we 

are looking at. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So based on the science then there was actually 

evidence of environmental degradation and damage from horizontal 

drilling and hydraulic fracturing? 

Mr. HOLTROP. The concerns had to do with both the potential, 

whether there would possibly be potential effects on both surface 

water and groundwater resources, and there was concern over 

what might be the chemical makeup of the material following the 

use for hydrofracturing. 

There is a great deal of public input from a lot of interests asking 

us to take a good, hard look at this issue and so we are trying to 

be responsive to the public’s request for us to do so. 

26 

Mr. THOMPSON. I understand public input and I appreciate the 

Forest Service takes that option, but my question was what does 

the data show? I mean, the Forest Service is involved in providing 

resources and so obviously oil and natural gas, I know there is a 

lot of it pumped out of the Allegheny National Forest. 

Is there data? Is there a track record? Is there established environmental damage and degradation that you had in documentation, 

or were these concerns of what may happen? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I think probably the best way of answering that 

is as we are looking at the full range of resources values that we 

have, that we are responsible for, that there were concerns that 

were raised that we felt it was important for us to consider a full 

range of alternatives that we ought to look at. 

We have every intention of using whatever data is available to 

us in that data. If that science tells us that this can operate safely 

with public health and resource values accounted for, that is the 

determination that we intend to make. 

I think what we have with National Forests across the United 

States, we have a recognition that there are great energy values on 

our National Forest System. There are great other values as well, 

and there is not going to be one solution in each one of those situations that is going to be the right solution. We are going to continue to look at all of the resource values and all of the opportunities that come associated with those. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I am just asking. I would ask actually if you 

would forward to my office—you know, I am looking for the facts 

in terms of on forestlands whether there has been environmental 

degradation versus speculation. Yes. 

Mr. HOLTROP. We will provide that information. We will extract 

much of that from the environmental impact statement, and we 

will look for other things as well to forward to you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 

for up to five minutes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing. Gentlemen, lady, thank you so much for being here 

as well. 

I am a westerner and so there are a few things that are very important to us—our public lands, access to energy and truly to jobs. 

Just as an aside, Mr. Holtrop, when I read through your testimony 

you noted about the importance and just spoke to it again of public 

input coming in. I really want to encourage you when you are looking at closing off some of our forestlands that you do listen to that 

public testimony, particularly in Colorado. 

But to the points that we are dealing with in this particular 

hearing, we have some real confusion. Mr. Abbey and Mr. Holtrop, 

if you could maybe answer this? We recently had Secretary Salazar 

before the Natural Resources Committee. I had been traveling in 

Colorado and met with BLM officials. They said that when the now 

defunct wildlands policy was going to be in place that they were 

not going to allow lateral drilling. When we spoke to the state officers they didn’t know what the policy was going to be. Then the 

Secretary indicated that no, lateral drilling was going to be allowed. 

27 

Can you clear this up? It seems to me that we have no basis to 

make any kind of a determination, and you haven’t decided. 

Mr. ABBEY. Thank you for the question. First and foremost, we 

do not have a wildlands policy at this point in time. We are not 

pursuing such a policy. 

Mr. TIPTON. We appreciate that. 

Mr. ABBEY. The Bureau of Land Management certainly recognizes the importance of horizontal drilling on public lands. It does 

lessen the footprint of drilling on these lands. It allows more wells 

to be drilled from a single location than individual wells being 

drilled vertically down. So I think both the U.S. Forest Service, as 

well as the Bureau of Land Management, recognizes the advantage 

of horizontal drilling. 

At this point in time as it relates to the public lands, we will continue to look at all opportunities that we have in responding to requests for applications to drill to see how best we can lessen that 

surface disturbance, and we will look at those requests on a caseby-case basis. But, as we indicated earlier, there is no ban on horizontal drilling. 

Mr. TIPTON. When we are talking about the depth, and maybe 

you can illustrate this for us, how far below the water table does 

fracking take place? How deep are those wells below the water 

table typically? 

Mr. ABBEY. It could vary from proposal to proposal. 

Mr. TIPTON. Just typically. 

Mr. ABBEY. Most drilling that is being done using fracking technology is below the groundwater level. 

Mr. TIPTON. Well below? 

Mr. ABBEY. In many cases well below. 

Mr. TIPTON. Well below. 

Mr. ABBEY. In the East that might not be the case. 

Mr. TIPTON. Sir, have we ever had any evidence of contamination 

of the water table from fracking? 

Mr. ABBEY. The Bureau of Land Management has never seen 

any evidence of impacts to groundwater from fracking technology, 

from the use of fracking technology on wells that have been approved by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Mr. TIPTON. So it appears to be safe? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, we have been using that technology for a number of years. As long as we are diligent relative to reviewing the 

proposals to ensure well casing integrity, to ensure that the design 

of the well borings are appropriate, to do the monitoring and work 

with the states and EPA to ensure that all the necessary permits 

are required and adhered to, again we believe that, based upon the 

track record so far, that it is safe. 

Mr. TIPTON. Very good. 

Mr. ABBEY. But that doesn’t take away the need to continue to 

be diligent in reviewing each of the proposals and making sure that 

appropriate monitoring takes place. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. I really appreciate that to hear the endorsement that it is a safe process. We do have to have the policies in 

place to make sure that we meet those safety and environmental 

standards, but it is safe to be able to proceed, so I do appreciate 

that, Director Abbey. 

28 

Gentlemen, I have listened to several questions so far, and I 

don’t believe I have actually heard the answer. Have you done a 

cost/benefit analysis? 

Ms. HYZER. An economic analysis is part of the EIS. 

Mr. TIPTON. It has not been done? 

Ms. HYZER. Pardon me? 

Mr. TIPTON. It has not been done? 

Ms. HYZER. There is a draft EIS available for public comment, 

and it includes a chapter on the economic analysis. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK. And so that is in progress? 

Ms. HYZER. It is available for public review right now. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK. Great. You know, as we were going through you 

are establishing policy, and I think part of the concern is obviously 

going to be precedent that comes into some consideration here. 

Both the Forest Service and the BLM are moving under the authority that has actually been granted by the Congress of the 

United States in terms of the developing of these policies. Would 

you gentlemen be agreeable to coming back for this committee, the 

Agricultural Committee, the Natural Resources Committee, before 

going active with your proposed regulations to get them back to the 

authoritative body of Congress for their review before you go active? 

Mr. ABBEY. Which regulations are you referring to? 

Mr. TIPTON. Any regulation. 

Mr. ABBEY. We believe that we have the administrative authority 

to pursue our own regulations and policies. 

Mr. TIPTON. Was that granted by Congress, sir? 

Mr. ABBEY. It would be consistent with the laws that have been 

granted by Congress. 

Mr. TIPTON. So would it be appropriate to bring that back to 

Congress for approval? 

Mr. ABBEY. We would be happy to report back to you on our 

plans. I am not sure we would be seeking approval. 

Mr. TIPTON. I think that is curious. This body has been elected 

to represent the people of the United States, and you are acting 

under the authority of Congress. I think you might want to maybe 

actually consider allowing Congress to have some actual input as 

well ultimately when we get down to some of the regulations. 

As I think probably every Member has heard, we are spending 

$1.75 trillion a year right now in regulatory costs in this country. 

All regulations are not bad, but I think it would be very appropriate for your consideration to come back to the body that authorized your agencies to be able to review those regulations rather 

than assuming that you have absolute authority. 

I yield back the balance of my time, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

The next person in the order of questions is Mr. Fleming of Louisiana. 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Panel, I am from the 4th District of Louisiana—Shreveport, Bossier City, DeSoto Parish. That is where the Haynesville shale is. 

Only three short years ago we had no idea really what the 

Haynesville shale is, was or would be in the future, and it has 

turned out that it has had a tremendous impact on our economy. 

29 

$11 billion so far entering the economy, jobs, poor parishes that 

are now doing tremendously well economically. We see police departments, sheriff departments, infrastructure, all of these things 

being improved, local government. As I say, high paying jobs with 

good income. And we are beginning to meet the country’s needs in 

terms of natural gas which, as you know, is the cleanest form of 

hydrocarbon that is now available. 

I can tell you that we have not seen any significant problems and 

so it really is beyond me to wonder now with a 9.2 percent unemployment rate, with energy costs as high as it has ever been and 

the country in such a desperate economic situation and a technology which is 50, 60 years old and is proven safe and even the 

EPA in 2004 said was perfectly safe, why in the world would we 

even be thinking about banning this type of technology, which is 

so essential not just for gas, but probably for the future of oil as 

well domestically? 

So my question. For instance, Ms. Hyzer, what is the typical 

depth of drilling in the horizontal drilling process? 

Ms. HYZER. I am not aware of that. We have no wells that have 

been drilled on the George Washington and Jefferson or the George 

Washington. 

Mr. FLEMING. But I mean in a typical gas well, gas shale? 

Ms. HYZER. I am not familiar with that. 

Mr. FLEMING. Anyone else? 

Mr. FERGUSON. I think it depends on what part of the country 

you are in. It is a real specific, geologic formation specific. 

As a general rule of thumb, most of the shale gas development 

that I have read about and not necessarily witnessed firsthand, 

there is usually a vertical well that is drilled anywhere from 4,000 

to 5,000— 

Mr. FLEMING. Just real quickly. 

Mr. FERGUSON. Four to five thousand feet. 

Mr. FLEMING. Four to five thousand feet. OK. 

Mr. FERGUSON. And then they—— 

Mr. FLEMING. And where is the water table? 

Mr. FERGUSON. Again, that varies from different parts of the 

country. It can be in the first couple of hundred feet, or it could 

be down as low as maybe a thousand feet. 

Mr. FLEMING. All right. 

Mr. FERGUSON. But near surface. 

Mr. FLEMING. So the horizontal drilling—in fact usually—is five 

times the depth. 

Ms. Hyzer, how many layers of casing is there as you bore down 

in the ground to get down to the horizontal level? 

Ms. HYZER. I am not familiar with that information. 

Mr. FLEMING. OK. Anyone else? 

Mr. FERGUSON. It can be a number of layers, depending on the 

depth. 

Mr. FLEMING. Typical. 

Mr. FERGUSON. Three to four with cement. I describe it as the 

old collapsible cup concept where you start with the larger surface 

and as you go down there is more and more. 

Mr. FLEMING. All right. I would say in our shale formation typical is six. And how many episodes are you aware where 

30 

hydrofracking fluid has leaked into the water table through the 

casing? 

Mr. FERGUSON. I am not aware of any—— 

Mr. FLEMING. Anybody? 

Mr. FERGUSON.—that I can point to. 

Mr. FLEMING. Anybody? 

[No response.] 

Mr. FLEMING. Can anybody specify a single incidence of death as 

a result of a hydrofracking process and the hydrofracking fluid 

somehow contaminating the water supply? Anyone? 

Mr. FERGUSON. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. FLEMING. Serious injury? 

Mr. FERGUSON. I am not aware of any. 

Mr. FLEMING. So if we are talking about billions of dollars of impact and the possibility of transforming our energy from an oilbased system that we have today to at least in part natural gas— 

and, by the way, we in the United States have more natural gas 

than any place in the world as it turns out, and this is a fact we 

only found out just in the last few years. 

If we have all of this potential available to us and no harm to 

anyone, why in the world would we be considering banning this 

process? Anyone on the panel willing to answer that question? 

Mr. HOLTROP. The purpose of us looking at the restrictions on 

the use of horizontal drilling on the George Washington National 

Forest have to do with issues around water use, the volumes of 

water that are associated with that, what would be the potential 

effects on surface water resources. 

Mr. FLEMING. But we have been doing it for 60 years, sir, and 

we have no evidence that there is a problem. Why do we want to 

ban it first and then ask questions later when we have 60 years 

of experience? 

Mr. HOLTROP. One of the things that I think are the input that 

we are getting through this draft environmental impact process is 

going to allow us to have additional information, helpful information for us to make that decision. 

Mr. FLEMING. You have 60 years, sir. How much do you need? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I believe the horizontal drilling technology is more 

recent than 60 years, but—— 

Mr. FLEMING. Hydrofracking is. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Hydrofracking has been around for 60 years. 

Mr. FLEMING. Well, that is what we are talking about here. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Well, actually we are talking—— 

Mr. FLEMING. And 90 percent of wells today require 

hydrofracking. We have 60 years of experience, not one single 

death, no injuries even that I know of, and yet we are going to ban 

or potentially ban the use of hydrofracking and/or horizontal drilling. 

Mr. HOLTROP. The preferred alternative in the plan that we are 

talking about allows hydrofracking with vertical wells. It is the 

horizontal drilling is what was—— 

Mr. FLEMING. It is no good without horizontal drilling, sir. 

Mr. HOLTROP. It has been used for 60 or 70 years. 

Mr. FLEMING. Well, yes, but the type of shale formations that we 

have today you are going to get very little yield out of vertical 

31 

wells. We have to go horizontal, and we are horizontal at two miles 

down so you are already below the water table. You hit that 

through the vertical drill, so if anything it would be safer at the 

horizontal level. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Flores of Texas? 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for 

being here today. 

The jobs report that we got today confirms the impact of a couple 

of things. One is an out-of-control fiscal situation in our Federal 

Government and also very importantly, and I think taking more 

precedence over the economy today, is the regulatory overreach of 

our administrative agencies. 

In that regard, there seems to be a process here that is out of 

control, and I want to dig into that a little bit more, but before I 

go there I would like to ask the three witnesses from the Forest 

Service. What was the target? Was it fracking or was it horizontal 

drilling or was it both? What was it you were trying to shoot? 

Ms. HYZER. We were trying to address the local government and 

community concerns with horizontal drilling and the excessive 

amount of water used in hydrofracking and the totality of the impacts of that—where the water comes from, what water comes back 

out again, what do you do with that water, the effect on the infrastructure, potential impacts on the infrastructure. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Ms. HYZER. So we looked at a full range of seven different alternatives with the full range so that we could explore different possibilities on how to address the issue, and that is what we are asking 

comment on. 

Mr. FLORES. What sort of facts and science did you use in coming 

up with that option? I mean, so you heard the local community say 

we are worried about it. 

You have people like The New York Times writing about 

fracking, and I guarantee you they don’t know anything about 

fracking. You have close to two million wells worldwide that have 

been fracked successfully without any problems, yet we are trying 

to go after a problem when I am not sure there is a problem. What 

were the facts and science that you used? 

Mr. HOLTROP. If I could, I think that some of the science that 

was used was the recognition that we had different geologic features on the George Washington than places where hydrofracking 

has already been successfully used with horizontal drilling, so we 

have a different geological situation in terms of the configuration 

of the shale and so that was part of what went into the analysis. 

Also what went into the analysis is there has been very little demand for this activity in that area because there seems to be more 

limited opportunities there, and as we are looking for ways that we 

can be responsive to the full range of public desires—which included no leasing, which included no oil and gas development from 

some of the local governments—what the Forest came up with was 

a range of alternatives that looked at that full range so that we 

would have this type of a dialogue that we would be able to make 

a final decision from. 

32 

Mr. FLORES. Was there going to be a dialogue? What I have seen 

from a lot of the rulemaking today is they will get substantial numbers of substantive comments back, and those are all ignored and 

the rules become final without change. I mean, are you different 

than the other agencies we are seeing these days? 

Mr. HOLTROP. I will not say that we are different from the other 

agencies. I suspect many of the agencies are like us in that we pay 

a great deal of attention to the public input that we get. We analyze the input. I would be happy to show you the type of analysis 

that we do when we do that type of public input. 

I can also tell you every time that we do a draft Forest Plan 

when we come out with a final Forest Plan it is different than what 

was in the draft based largely on that public comment. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. So as I understand the option for the ban of 

horizontal drilling, vertical drilling is still an acceptable option. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. HOLTROP. In the alternative, yes. 

Mr. FLORES. But you do understand that the surface footprint of 

vertical drilling is much, much more invasive by a factor of anywhere from two to 10 times more invasive than horizontal? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Or more. We are aware of that. That is one of the 

reasons why we do recognize the values of horizontal drilling when 

the situation calls for it, and if that is the right situation here we 

will continue to consider that. 

Mr. FLORES. And as I understand it, your primary mission is to 

protect the surface, right? I mean, BLM is responsible for subsurface. Am I correct? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Both. Well, the BLM has authority subsurface. We 

have authority for the surface. But our shared responsibility and 

our shared desire is to protect water resources, both surface and 

subsurface, as well as all the other resource values. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. I hope that you pay lots of attention to the comments you get because I assume that you are going to receive a lot 

of comments. 

This ban, if it is the direction you would like to go, is the wrong 

thing to do for this economic—it is wrong for the country from an 

economic standpoint, from a job standpoint and from an energy 

standpoint. Thank you. 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thanks for the input. 

Mr. FLORES. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

I recognize the gentleman from Maryland for up to five minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

your patience and also for your testimony today. I appreciate your 

efforts to explain that moving with some prudence and careful 

thought with respect to this hydraulic fracturing and horizontal 

drilling does not constitute a ban de facto or any other kind of ban. 

I think that you have described very well the broad activity that 

continues to happen on Federal lands with respect to development 

and production of our natural resources in terms of oil, in terms 

of gas and so forth. 

I don’t want any audience that is watching or listening to this 

hearing to go away with the impression that your caution, your 

willingness or your desire to move in a kind of deliberate way in 

33 

considering the potential harm from this doesn’t have any support 

in reality out there and so I am aware, because I am bringing particular attention to this as a representative who cares very deeply 

about the Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 

that there have been incidents and recent incidents that point to 

the potential harm that can come from the fracking process. 

Not too long ago, there was a blowout in Pennsylvania of one of 

these hydrofracking wells that resulted in a discharge of thousands 

of gallons of fracking fluids, which—I think the record ought to at 

this point stipulate—can contain a lot of toxic material. My understanding is that even in those areas of the country that are cited 

as having 60 years of experience and it was pointed out that you 

have to distinguish where this experience has happened because 

you have different geology implicated in places like the Chesapeake 

watershed than you do in places like Oklahoma and Texas and so 

forth. 

So we shouldn’t borrow lock, stock and barrel the lessons from 

one part of the country and try to impose them on others, but even 

in those parts of the country my understanding is that there was 

a discharge line installed in connection with a fracking process operated by Chesapeake operating in Oklahoma and Texas that resulted in discharge fluid into the Washita River. 

Can you speak to the fact that there are instances out there that 

you are taking note of that suggest that there is potential harm 

that can come from the process, from the beginning to the end 

process, that is a good reason for you to want to step carefully in 

terms of whether you open these kinds of public lands to horizontal 

drilling? Mr. Abbey and then any others who want to speak to it. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well again, I think that is an excellent question and 

comments that you raise. The increased use of hydraulic fracturing 

on both public and private lands has certainly generated concern 

among the public regarding its potential effects on water quality 

and availability. As I mentioned before, as far as the Bureau of 

Land Management, in our experience we have not seen impacts to 

groundwater as a result of using the fracking technology on wells 

that we have approved. That does not take away the need to be 

diligent, as I mentioned before. 

You know, that is why we focus on the integrity of the well and 

also to make sure that the well itself is well engineered and designed because if there is going to be a leak, it would be as part 

of that drilling process, and there is potential for the fracking 

chemicals to get into groundwater. That is why we put most of our 

focus on the casings and again the well bore, the integrity of that. 

At the same time, it behooves all of us to maintain diligence on 

the monitoring so that we are cognizant of any potential impact 

that might be occurring so that we could take immediate steps to 

rectify those impacts. I have read about some of the impacts that 

have been associated with fracking in the eastern United States. I 

am not familiar with those particular cases, but it does again raise 

our awareness that we need to be very, very careful as we review 

these proposals. 

Mr. HOLTROP. If I could just add to that? The part of your question thinking from the very beginning of the process to the end of 

the process, those are things that we are also continuing to pay atVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
34 

tention to and think about; not only the source of the water and 

where the water is coming from in order to provide the material 

for the fracking and what would be the implications of the water 

coming from that source, but then the material afterwards. 

There are ways, and there is a lot of success, in successfully disposing of that material, but it has to be—as Mr. Abbey has been 

saying, we have to be diligent in paying attention to how we dispose of the material following the hydrofracturing as well. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Now the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Chairman Thompson for holding this hearing. My congressional district in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley of Virginia 

seems to be the focal point of it, so I appreciate the attention 

brought to the matter. 

I have long been, as I think most people here have been, a supporter of the use of natural gas. For those who are concerned about 

greenhouse gas emissions, it has fewer emissions than some other 

carbon-based sources of energy. I am also a big advocate of local 

input into decisions made by the Federal Government, particularly 

in the case of the management of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, which are both primarily located in my 

congressional district. 

I commend them for doing that. They have heard from some of 

my local governments on the issue. I think that is important, but 

my understanding is that the Forest Service would have other 

ways to stop horizontal drilling in the National Forest should a 

permit be requested, and I don’t know that that has been received 

at this point in time, but should one be filed in the George Washington National Forest would there be other ways of stopping horizontal drilling from taking place if you found that there were not 

the correct procedures or precautions being taken? 

Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Abbey talked about the necessity, which 

I think is absolutely true, that you have to deploy good, safe technology to do this. On the other hand, the preferred plan of the 

Forest Service for the George Washington imposes a 15 year ban 

as the preferential way to address the concerns. 

So what I would ask you, Mr. Holtrop, is why did the Forest 

Service feel that a 15 year ban was the appropriate way to go in 

their preferred plan, as opposed to looking at the science, looking 

at the technology that Mr. Abbey referred to, making sure that the 

drilling goes well below the groundwater? 

You are right. Geological formations are different everywhere, 

but it is my understanding that there is horizontal drilling that 

takes place right now in the Jefferson National Forest to the south 

of the George Washington National Forest. Why a 15 year ban, as 

opposed to taking other measures that would assure my constituents that this is being done in a safe way that will not disturb the 

drinking water that my local governments are concerned about or 

other degradation of the land that certainly some of my constituents are also concerned about? 

35 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you for that question and thank you for 

your continuing interest and help in the management of the George 

Washington National Forest. 

I believe the best way to answer that direct question, and I 

would just like to add a little bit, is that I think as the Forest 

weighed the variety of information that they had in terms of the 

local input, in terms of the recognition of the high values of the 

water resources from the George Washington National Forest for 

millions of people, that as they weighed all of those in order to generate the kind of input and the kind of interest in the topic that 

that was the right, preferred alternative. 

But again, not a decision. It was to make sure that there was the 

appropriate type of continuing public input into the decision-making process, which is—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Was there a safety or scientific reason for the 

Forest Service to place the ban, to propose placing the ban? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Again, the science. We used the best science that 

is available to us at this time. I would like to express again there 

has not been a decision made, so there is not a ban. There is a proposed preferred alternative that considers that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me ask you. I understand that. Let me ask 

you another question. Is there a difference in the shale formation 

in the George Washington Forest different than the Jefferson National Forest that would require such an absolute difference in approach? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Maybe somebody else can answer and I can fill in. 

Ms. HYZER. OK. The Marcellus shale formation under the George 

Washington is very folded and fractured, and over the last 30 years 

there have been hundreds of thousands of acres there leased, but 

only five wells have been drilled, conventional wells, and they were 

not successful. 

On the Jefferson it is a different kind of formation. It is more accessible. There are a number of wells there now, active wells that 

have been leased over many years. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So that makes it more attractive maybe. I 

mean, that might also provide more assurance to my constituents 

that there may not be the activity that they are concerned about 

because the formation may be different for that reason. 

But is there a safety difference between the two? That I think 

should be the basis on which you would make a decision on whether to impose different regulations for drilling there as opposed to 

an outright ban there. 

Ms. HYZER. That is a point that we need to look into and consider. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I also understand that public input is important. It is important to us as Representatives. It is certainly important for government agencies to take that into account, so I commend you for doing that. 

Yet some of the same localities that came out in opposition to 

wilderness, which is included in the plan, they came out in opposition to wilderness and yet you have included wilderness in those 

same jurisdictions. Do you have a comment on why you responded 

to the localities on one issue, but not the other? 

36 

Ms. HYZER. We have been working with the counties on that 

issue also, and we have looked at what the potential is for wilderness in there and what is most suitable. 

We did not recommend a great deal of wilderness at this point. 

Again, we were concerned that we needed to have a real balance 

of uses and development activities on the National Forest. We were 

concerned about jobs. We were concerned about energy development. So we looked at the broad range, and we have continued to 

work with the counties and will continue to work with them on 

that issue. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good. Well, we appreciate that. Could I just—— 

Mr. HOLTROP. Could I just add to that one question if I might, 

Mr. Chairman? I am sorry. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Holtrop? 

Mr. HOLTROP. Thank you. If I could just very briefly just add the 

range of public input in those communities of interest that were 

providing input, some of them requested no leasing. Some of them 

requested no hydrofracturing whatsoever. The preferred alternative 

that was selected does allow, does open up 900,000 plus acres of 

the forest to leasing that was not previously available. It does allow 

hydrofracturing for vertical wells. 

Again, there was a consideration of all those inputs, so I would 

say that what we have come up with in the preferred doesn’t totally meet the—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sure. I think one of my colleagues made the 

point that with vertical wells if you are going to go ahead that 

route it first of all requires more drilling, more surface disturbance 

than horizontal drilling. 

But also if you allow hydrofracking with a vertical well the issue 

there is even greater in terms of groundwater contamination, so I 

am not sure your position is consistent in that regard. 

Mr. HOLTROP. I agree with what you just said. If the concern was 

the impact, the surface impact, that would drive the decision more 

when the concern is the water quality. That is the determination 

we are making. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if I might have permission to 

ask one more question? 

Prior to proposing this ban in your preferred plan, had any companies approached the Forest Service about the possibility of obtaining permits for horizontal drilling? 

Ms. HYZER. Not to my knowledge. BLM? Any? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My recommendation would be that you anticipate that that could happen and that you have good regulations 

that put in place the kind of protections that Mr. Abbey referred 

to because this is a very common practice that takes place all over 

the country. Millions of wells have been drilled, and it is by far the 

most efficient way to extract a very important source of energy. 

I would hope that you would take into account that a simple 15 

year ban doesn’t address. It just simply punts. It doesn’t take into 

account the need to have good technology deployed if you were to 

receive applications and that that might be the better route to go. 

Thank you. 

37 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. I want to thank the panel for 

their testimony. That concludes our questions. Sorry for the delay 

earlier. Thank you for your patience on that as well. 

I now invite the second panel to come forward. On that panel 

will be Maureen Matsen, Deputy Director of Natural Resources and 

Senior Advisor on Energy for the Commonwealth of Virginia, accompanied by David Spears, the State Geologist of Virginia; Mr. 

David Miller, Director of Standards for the American Petroleum Institute; 

Mr. Lee Fuller, Vice President of Government Relations for the 

Independent Petroleum Association of America; Mr. Craig Mayer, 

General Counsel for Pennsylvania General Energy, LLC; Ms. Kate 

Wofford, Executive Director of Shenandoah Valley Network; and 

Ms. Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Now, before we seat this panel I want to clarify 

an issue. Under Committee Rule 4(a) and House Rule 12.2(g)(5), 

witnesses appearing in a nongovernmental capacity are required to 

file with their testimony a completed disclosure form describing 

their education, employment and experience and provide other 

background information pertinent to their testimony. The purpose 

of this information is to help the Members of the committee judge 

the testimony in context. 

Rule 4(a) of the committee indicates that failure to comply with 

these requirements may result in the exclusion of the written testimony from the hearing record and/or the barring of an oral presentation of the testimony. 

Ms. Mall, recognizing that your invitation was extended late your 

disclosure statement indicates a statement where you admit that 

it remains incomplete and that the information will be forthcoming. 

So before the committee seats you on this panel, will you orally 

commit to us that you will provide a completed disclosure form to 

this committee no later than close of business Tuesday, July 12 of 

this year? 

Ms. MALL. We absolutely will commit to providing the disclosure 

form. I would not be providing the information myself—it would be 

our legal and financial staff—so I am assuming they can do it by 

that time on the 12th. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. MALL. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Like all our witnesses, your written testimony will 

appear in full in the hearing record, so I ask you to keep your oral 

statements to five minutes as outlined in our invitation letter. 

Our microphones are not automatic, so you have to press the button to begin. The green light comes on with five minutes, a yellow 

light will come on with one minute, and a red light at the conclusion of five minutes. 

We will just jump right in. Ms. Matsen, you may begin. 

38 

STATEMENT OF MAUREEN MATSEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND SENIOR ADVISOR ON ENERGY, 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID 

SPEARS, VIRGINIA STATE GEOLOGIST 

Ms. MATSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. It really is a pleasure to be here. 

Since taking office 18 months ago, Governor Bob McDonnell has 

had a singular focus on rebuilding Virginia’s economy. The citizens 

of Virginia, like the citizens of every state around the country, need 

jobs first and foremost. 

To make certain that we grow our economy and create jobs in 

ways that are safe and environmentally responsible, we have made 

our state environmental regulators an integral part of our economic 

development teams so that we can successfully allow the development and use of Virginia’s natural resources without sacrificing our 

clean air and our clean water. 

The focus on bringing new jobs to Virginia goes hand in hand 

with the Governor’s determination to make Virginia the energy 

capital of the East Coast. We are working every day to make Virginia’s valuable energy resources, both onshore and offshore, available to meet growing energy needs and to secure high paying jobs 

in energy development and in the supply chains that support that 

development. 

Since adoption of the 1990 version of Virginia’s Gas and Oil Act, 

natural gas production has meant more than $2 billion in capital 

investment in Virginia, over $630 million in royalties, over $150 

million in severance taxes paid, and all of that is in addition to 

mineral, payroll and sales taxes paid to Virginia. Most important 

of all, the industry has created more than 3,000 jobs. 

Virginia has been effectively balancing our economy and our environment for decades. Hydrofracturing has been used in approximately 1,800 wells, producing natural gas from shale, sandstone 

and limestone formations in Southwest Virginia since the 1950s. 

We are today, as it has been noted, drilling wells in the Jefferson 

National Forest. 

Natural gas wells in Virginia are permitted through the Division 

of Oil and Gas of Virginia’s Department of Mines, Minerals and 

Energy. This group works closely in all well permitting with the 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to ensure that 

water withdrawals and disposal of produced fluids do not harm 

surface or groundwater. 

I have with me today in fact a technical expert, Mr. David 

Spears, who is our State Geologist and a former Director of the Oil 

and Gas Division, to answer any questions you might have about 

our regulatory model and its enforcement, but I will share with you 

a few of its important attributes. 

Our permit review process begins at the very beginning with research concerning the specific proposed well site. Our regulations 

do not allow any offsite impacts or discharges to surface waters. 

Our inspectors are on-site for every critical operation leading to 

production and for reclamation. Our comprehensive regulatory 

scheme has protected Virginians and Virginia’s environment for 

decades. Over those years there have been no documented inVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
39 

stances of surface water or groundwater degradation from fracking 

in Virginia. 

In short, Virginia has long experience with effectively regulating 

hydrofracturing. We are doing it safely, and we are protecting the 

environment and the health of our citizens. Virginia appreciates 

and values its spectacular National Forests. Indeed, no one cares 

more for the preservation of Virginia’s magnificent landscapes and 

the quality of Virginia’s waters than Virginians do. Our regulators 

protect the water that they, their families and their neighbors 

enjoy and depend on every day. 

The proposed ban on horizontal drilling included in the draft revised land and resource management plan for the George Washington National Forest, if adopted, would represent an unprecedented interference with development of underground resources on 

Federal lands. Restricting drilling in an area the same size as the 

current Virginia producing area will limit jobs and economic 

growth. 

We know of no justification, scientific or otherwise, for ending the 

effective collaboration between Virginia and the Bureau of Land 

Management and other Federal agencies to provide access to those 

resources. In fact, horizontal drilling would allow access to the important energy resource under the forest with fewer wells and far 

less construction and disruption above ground than comes with the 

traditional vertical wells that have historically been allowed in the 

forest. 

Virginia is home to a valuable natural gas resource that ought 

not be put on the shelf and off limits. The proposed ban would 

harm Virginia and Virginians by burdening business and preventing job growth. It would undermine the nation’s energy security by placing domestic resources out of reach at a time when global competition for energy resources is rapidly increasing, and it 

would do so without justification and without any identifiable or 

tangible benefit beyond the protections already accomplished by 

Virginia’s well-established regulation of natural gas development. 

I thank you for this opportunity to be with you today, and I am 

happy to respond to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsen follows:] 

Statement of Maureen Matsen, Deputy Director of Natural Resources 

and Senior Advisor on Energy, Commonwealth of Virginia 

Since taking office 18 months ago, Governor Bob McDonnell has had a singular 

focus on rebuilding Virginia’s economy. The citizens of Virginia, like the citizens of 

every state around the country need jobs, first and foremost. 

For Governor McDonnell that means that his most important job is recruiting new 

businesses to locate in Virginia, and facilitating the expansion of our existing businesses. 

And to make certain that we grow our economy and create jobs in ways that are 

safe and environmentally responsible, we have made sure that our state environmental regulators are an integral part of our economic development teams, so that 

we can successfully allow the development and use of Virginia’s natural resources, 

without sacrificing our clean air or our clean water. 

The focus on bringing new jobs to Virginia goes hand in hand with the Governor’s 

determination to make Virginia the Energy Capital of the East Coast. 

We are working every day to make Virginia’s valuable energy resources—on shore 

and offshore—available to support Virginia’s energy needs, to the nation, and to the 

world. 

40 

The development of Virginia’s coal, offshore and onshore wind, biomass, nuclear, 

solar, oil and natural gas resources, offers secure, high paying jobs both in development and in the supply chains that support that development. 

Virginia businesses depend on access to our natural resources, and our citizens 

depend on the jobs those businesses provide, as well as the direct and indirect revenues that flow from them. 

Indeed, since adoption of Virginia’s Gas and Oil Act, natural gas production has meant more that $2 billion in capital investment, $630 million in royalties, $150 

million in severance taxes paid, in addition to mineral, payroll and sales taxes, to 

Virginia. And the industry has created more than 3000 jobs. 

Specifically with regard to natural gas development in Virginia, we have been effectively balancing our economy and our environment for decades. 

Fracing has been used in approximately 1800 wells, producing natural gas from 

shale, sandstone and limestone formation drilled in Southwest Virginia since the 

1950s. 

We are—today—drilling wells in the Jefferson National Forest. There have been 

wells drilled in the George Washington National Forest, though none of them are 

active any longer. 

Natural gas wells are permitted through our Division of Oil and Gas, of our Department of Mines Minerals and Energy. This group works closely, in all well permitting, with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to ensure that 

water withdrawals and disposal of produced fluids do not harm surface or ground 

waters. 

Our permit review process includes: research concerning the specific proposed well 

site; water used during the drilling process is required to meet state water quality 

standards by region; Virginia’s well casing/cementing program is a multi-casing and 

cementing program designed to prevent contamination of groundwater; our regulations do not allow off-site impacts or discharges to surface waters; independent lab 

tests of water wells and springs within 500 feet of a proposed well are required before drilling can begin; waste water can only be land applied if the fluids meet water 

quality standards, if not, it must be transported to an approved Class II EPA waste 

disposal well or other properly permitted facility. Our inspectors are on site for 

every critical operation leading to production, and for reclamation. And those are 

just the highlights of a comprehensive regulatory scheme that has protected Virginians, and Virginia’s environment for fifty years. There have been no documented 

instances of surface water or groundwater degradation from fracing in Virginia. 

In short, Virginia has long experience with effectively regulating hydro fracturing, 

and in working with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management 

to safely develop the resources available under federal lands, including our national 

forests. 

We are doing it safely, and we are protecting the environment—our water and our 

air—at the same time. 

Virginia appreciates and values its spectacular national forests. 

Indeed, no one cares more for the preservation of Virginia’s magnificent landscapes and the quality of Virginia’s waters, than Virginians do. 

Our regulators protect what they, and their neighbors, enjoy and depend on every 

day. 

The Draft Revised Land & Resource Management Plan for the George Washington National Forest—by virtue of its proposed ban on horizontal drilling – 

If adopted, would represent an unprecedented interference with development of 

underground resources on federal lands, that ought to be available to meet the nation’s growing energy needs. 

Restricting drilling in an area the same size as the current Virginia producing 

area limits jobs and economic growth. 

We know of no justification, scientific or otherwise, for ending the effective collaboration between Virginia and the Bureau of Land Management and other federal 

agencies to provide access to those resources. 

In fact, horizontal drilling would allow access to the important energy resource 

under the forest with few wells, and far less construction and disruption above 

ground than comes with the traditional vertical wells that have historically been 

permitted in the forest. 

Virginia is home to a valuable natural gas resource that ought not be put on the 

shelf, and off limits. 

The proposed ban would harm Virginia, and Virginians by burdening business 

and preventing job growth; 

It would undermine the nation’s energy security by placing domestic resources out 

of reach at a time when the global competition for energy resources is rapidly increasing. 

41 

And it would do so without justification, and without any identifiable and tangible 

benefit that we can see, beyond what is already accomplished by our well established regulation of natural gas development. 

Mr. THOMPSON [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Miller, if you will proceed with your testimony, please? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MILLER, P.E., F.A.S.C.E., 

STANDARDS DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE 

Mr. MILLER. Good afternoon, Chairman Lamborn and Chairman 

Thompson, Ranking Members and Members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address challenges facing domestic oil and gas development. 

My name is David Miller. I am the Standards Director for the 

American Petroleum Institute. You may know that API has more 

than 470 member companies that represent all sectors of America’s 

oil and natural gas industry and that our industry supports 9.2 

million American jobs and provides most of the energy America 

needs. 

What you may not know is that API has been the leader for 

nearly nine decades in developing voluntary industry standards 

that promote reliability and safety through proven engineering 

practices. Our industry’s top priority is to provide energy in a safe, 

technologically sound and environmentally responsible manner. We 

therefore take seriously our responsibility to work in cooperation 

with government to develop practices and equipment that improve 

the operational and regulatory process across the board. 

The API standards program is accredited by the American National Standards Institute, ANSI, the authority on U.S. standards 

and the same organization that accredits programs in several national laboratories. API undergoes regular third party program audits to ensure compliance with ANSI’s essential requirements for 

standards development. 

API standards are developed through a collaborative effort with 

industry experts, as well as the best and brightest technical experts from government, academia and other relevant stakeholders. 

For that reason, API standards are widely cited by both Federal 

and state regulators. 

The committees that develop and maintain these standards represent API’s largest program, with over 4,800 volunteers working 

on 380 committees and task groups. API standards are normally 

reviewed every five years to ensure that they remain current, but 

some are reviewed more frequently based on need. 

Overall, API maintains some 600 standards, recommended practices, specifications, codes, technical publications, reports and studies that cover all aspects of the industry, including five guidance 

documents focused on hydraulic fracturing operations. These documents provide the blueprint for the environmentally sound development of natural gas. 

We have shared these documents with nongovernmental organizations, state regulators, the Bureau of Land Management and the 

Department of Energy. In particular, API has presented an overview of these documents to the Public Health, Safety and EnvironVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
42 

mental Protection Work Group of the Pennsylvania Governor’s 

Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission. 

API has also given presentations to industry conferences and 

provided training on these documents to staff members of the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. We are 

available to provide similar educational opportunities to other interested stakeholders, and the documents are publicly available on 

our website at www.api.org under the Hydraulic Fracturing page. 

Well construction practices covered in these documents are 

standard in the industry and enforced by virtually all states to effectively protect underground sources of drinking water from potential impacts related to oil and gas exploration of production activities, including hydraulic fracturing. 

The great majority of hydraulic fracturing activities take place at 

depths far below existing groundwater sources that could reasonably be considered underground sources of drinking water. Contemporary well design practices—still pipes cemented to the rock 

through which the well is drilled—ensure multiple levels of protection between any sources of drinking water and the production 

zone of an oil and gas well. 

We look forward to providing constructive input as the Subcommittees, the Congress and the Administration consider the 

challenges facing domestic oil and gas development. 

That concludes my statement. I welcome questions from you and 

your colleagues. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Statement of David Miller, Standards Director, 

American Petroleum Institute 

Good morning, Chairman Lamborn and Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member 

Holt and Ranking Member Holden, and members of the subcommittees. Thank you 

for the opportunity to address challenges facing Domestic Oil and Gas Development. 

My name is David Miller. I am the standards director for the American Petroleum 

Institute. You may know that API has more than 470 member companies that represent all sectors of America’s oil and natural gas industry, and that our industry 

supports 9.2 million American jobs and provides most of the energy America needs. 

What you may not know is that API has been the leader for nearly nine decades 

in developing voluntary industry standards that promote reliability and safety 

through proven engineering practices. 

Our industry’s top priority is to provide energy in a safe, technologically sound 

and environmentally responsible manner. We therefore take seriously our responsibility to work in cooperation with government to develop practices and equipment 

that improve the operational and regulatory process across the board. 

API’s standards program is accredited by the American National Standards Institute, ANSI, the authority on U.S. standards, and the same organization that accredits programs at several national laboratories. API undergoes regular third-party 

program audits to ensure compliance with ANSI’s Essential Requirements for standards development. 

API’s standards are developed through a collaborative effort with industry experts, as well as the best and brightest technical experts from government, academia and other relevant stakeholders. For this reason API standards are widely 

cited by both Federal and State regulators. 

The committees that develop and maintain these standards represent API’s largest program, with 4,800 volunteers working on 380 committees and task groups. 

API standards are normally reviewed every five years to ensure they remain current, but some are reviewed more frequently, based on need. 

Overall, API maintains more than 600 standards—recommended practices, specifications, codes, technical publications, reports and studies—that cover all aspects 

of the industry, including five guidance documents focused on hydraulic fracturing 

operations. These documents provide the blueprint for the environmentally sound 

development of natural gas. We have shared these documents with Non-GovernVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43 

mental Organizations, State Regulators, the Bureau of Land Management and the 

Department of Energy. 

In particular, API has presented an overview of these documents to the Public 

Health, Safety, and Environmental Protection Work Group of the Pennsylvania Governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission. API has also given presentations to 

industry conferences and provided training on the documents to staff members of 

the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. We are available to provide similar educational opportunities to other interested stakeholders, and the documents are publically available on our website at www.api.org under the ‘‘Hydraulic 

Fracturing’’ page. 

Well construction practices covered in these documents are standard in the industry and are enforced by virtually all states to effectively protect underground 

sources of drinking water from potential impacts related to oil and gas exploration 

and production activities, including hydraulic fracturing. The great majority of hydraulic fracturing activities take place at depths far below existing groundwater 

sources that could reasonably be considered underground sources of drinking water. 

And contemporary well design practices—steel pipe cemented to the rock through 

which a well is drilled—ensure multiple levels of protection between any sources of 

drinking water and the production zone of an oil and gas well. 

We look forward to providing constructive input as the Subcommittees; the Congress and the Administration consider the challenges facing Domestic Oil and Gas 

Development. 

This concludes my statement, Messrs. Chairman. I welcome questions from you 

and your colleagues. Thank you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Fuller, go ahead and proceed with your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF LEE FULLER, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (IPAA) 

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on 

Natural Resources and the Committee on Agriculture, while today’s 

hearing has been triggered by the draft environmental impact 

statement related to the George Washington National Forest, IPAA 

believes that the draft EIS presents broader issues. 

First, it reflects an inconsistency within the Administration. 

While publicly emphasizing the importance of American natural 

gas, its regulatory positions in this draft EIS and other venues 

seek to limit the access and production of these resources. 

In the draft EIS, the Forest Service seeks to limit the use of the 

horizontal drilling technology. It rationalizes these limitations 

based on surface disruption and water issues. Horizontal drilling 

technology is recognized as an option that reduces the surface footprint. The water issues are couched in the context of comparing the 

impacts of one horizontally drilled well to one vertical well rather 

than one horizontally drilled well to the several vertical wells it replaces. 

The draft EIS clearly anticipates that a portion of the resource 

play underlying the forest is shale gas. Development of shale gas 

hinges on the use of two pivotal technologies, horizontal drilling 

and hydraulic fracturing. The draft EIS proposes a horizontal drilling ban that would prevent the economic development of this shale 

gas resource. If this type of rationale is applied to Federal lands 

nationally, it will clearly limit America’s access to its resource base. 

It is completely unjustified. 

Second, the draft EIS follows a path of targeting longstanding, 

well-regarded technologies as the basis for limiting development. 

44 

Over the past several years, there has been a national effort to 

thwart the development of American resources by attacking various 

technologies, principally hydraulic fracturing, to create anxieties in 

communities and to shift the decision-making process from managing environmental risks to prohibitions of technologies. 

Developing American resources is not easy. Drilling natural gas 

and oil wells is a capital intensive process that involves sophisticated equipment. Equally important, it is a regulated action. Oil 

and natural gas drilling regulations have been developed since before horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing existed. 

Drinking water protections that require the use of steel casing 

cemented in place when the well bore passes through water supplies were developed to protect these resources from exposure to oil 

and hence produced water. Those protections remain in place and 

are regularly revised. They are the fundamental protections that 

apply to the use of hydraulic fracturing with or without horizontal 

drilling. 

Other environmental risks must also be managed. Produced 

water, water that is present in natural gas and oil formations, can 

be a significant environmental hazard generally because it is extremely salty. State regulatory programs have been created to 

manage this risk, and both the Federal Clean Water Act and Safe 

Drinking Water Act regulate produced water management. 

If decisions on development of American natural gas and oil are 

based on managing the environmental risk, history demonstrates 

that regulatory systems effectively address the risks associated 

with oil and natural gas production. Consequently, the tactics of 

those opposing development have shifted. 

First, the technologies used to produce natural gas and oil are 

distorted. Second, the regulatory process and the regulators are demeaned. Third, Federalization of the regulatory process or expanded Federal regulations demand it. 

Hydraulic fracturing is an illustrative example. Recurring studies have included that fracturing is safe as currently regulated, but 

since it is a linchpin to developing America’s large shale gas and 

shale oil formations, fracturing has been mischaracterized, distorted and demonized. 

Because the regulatory systems create a barrier to movement of 

fracturing fluids from the well bore to drinking water, the environment is protected from the fracturing fluids that are used, mixtures 

that are 99.5 percent water and sand. Consequently, rather than 

address the management of the fracturing process, production opponents have focused on the chemicals used in the one-half percent 

of the fluids. 

Producers do not oppose disclosing the chemicals used in the 

fracturing process, but because confidential business information is 

involved the execution of disclosure is not straightforward. Weaving through these complexities, the state regulators have developed 

a national registry, Frac Focus, that producers strongly endorse. It 

will provide well-by-well information on chemicals, but production 

opponents will not endorse it. They demand Federalization. 

This disagreement will continue with the key point that the regulatory process protects groundwater resources since chemicals will 

always be a part of the production of oil and natural gas, a casVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
45 

ualty to the antiproduction rhetoric. Equally clear, production opponents regularly attribute any produced water problem to hydraulic 

fracturing. In recent years, produced waters are characterized as 

fracturing fluids. They are not. 

If a rational debate on production is to take place, it must be 

based on a fair characterization of the issue instead of the distorted 

rhetoric that has become so prevalent. Thank you very much. I will 

be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fuller follows:] 

Statement of The Independent Petroleum Association of America 

This testimony is submitted by the Independent Petroleum Association of America 

(IPAA). IPAA represents the thousands of independent natural gas and oil explorers 

and producers, as well as the service and supply industries that support their efforts. Independent producers drill about 95 percent of American oil and natural gas 

wells, produce over 56 percent of American oil and more than 85 percent of American natural gas. 

This hearing examines issues associated with the development of American oil 

and natural gas resources, principally with respect to access to federal lands. In 

part, the hearing addresses a proposed plan for the development of the George 

Washington National Forest. But, IPAA believes that this proposed plan presents 

a far larger issue—the reluctance of the cut-rent Administration to support the development of the full spectrum of American resources. More specifically, the issues 

that seem to represent the Administration’s positions related to its approach to technologies that are essential to develop these American resources—technologies that 

have been proven safe over years of operation but are now, without evidence, called 

into question. This tactic has been regularly used by various environmental groups 

that oppose the development of all fossil fuels as part of a strategy to create community anxiety over oil and natural gas development, demean the regulatory process 

and agencies that manage the environmental risk associated with these technologies, and demand a federalization of the regulatory process to inhibit resource 

development. 

Most of this effort has been directed at the use of advanced hydraulic fracturing. 

In the George Washington National Forest proposal, the tactic has expanded to include the use of horizontal drilling. This testimony will address both technologies. 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the George Washington National Forest (DEIS) includes as 

its preferred alternative the prohibition of horizontal drilling for oil and natural gas. 

Astonishingly, it justifies this preference on the basis of limiting surface disruption 

and water demand. A fundamental benefit of horizontal drilling is its reduction of 

the surface footprint of oil and natural gas development. During the debates over 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it was the use of horizontal drilling to tap distant reservoirs that reduced the surface impact of oil development. Horizontal drilling technology allows the well bore to turn from its vertical orientation in order to 

develop resources that are inaccessible from the well’s surface site or that are deposited in horizontal formations such as shale gas and shale oil. Horizontal drilling rapidly increased in the mid-1970s to become a mainstay of drilling options to access 

a variety of different resource plays. Highlighted in the Department of Energy 1999 

document, ‘‘ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS of ADVANCED OIL and GAS EXPLORATION and PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY’’, horizontal drilling provides both 

more efficient drilling and less surface disruption. 

IPAA believes that the DE1S follows a common pattern of overstating implications of oil and natural gas development on water demand. This pattern builds on 

two perceptions—the demand for water in oil and natural gas development is high 

and the demand for its use in fracturing in the context of horizontal drilling is particularly large. Significantly, the DEIS use of the water demand issue demonstrates 

that the real issue relates to hydraulic fracturing. But, by examining the issue in 

context, the perceived impact is overstated. Numerous assessments of the demand 

for water in oil and natural gas development demonstrate that it falls well below 

other water demands. For example, the FracFocus website, developed by the Ground 

Water Protection Council (GWPC) and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), provides a breakdown of water demand demonstrating that oil and 

natural gas development falls in the mining category—approximately one percent of 

the total (http://fracfocus.org/water-protection/hydraulic-fracturing-usage). Certainly, 

specific areas will differ in the mix of demand, but clearly water use for oil and natVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
46 

ural gas development is manageable. Similarly, the DEIS proposes to prohibit horizontal drilled wells while allowing vertical wells that would be hydraulically fractured. In part, it rationalizes this distinction by stating: 

Some level of hydrofracturing is used in nearly all gas well drilling. Conventional drilling has occurred on the Jefferson NF for many years without 

incident. It is the unconventional drilling technique of horizontal drilling 

and its unconventional use of hvdrofracturing that has raised concerns. 

Horizontal drilling uses repeated hvdrofracturing at intervals throughout 

the horizontal shaft over long distances, and so, requires very large 

amounts of water and has the potential for affecting water quality that goes 

far beyond hydrofracturing associated with conventional (vertical) drilling. 

Rather than restricting all hvdrofracturing, the Forest decided to prohibit 

horizontal drilling and its associated hydrofracturing. 

Setting aside that neither horizontal drilling nor hydraulic fracturing is an unconventional technology, the statement fails to recognize that horizontal drilling allows 

for the development of the same amount of resource that would require far more 

vertical wells. The 2009 Department of Energy document, Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer, sets out the impact well: 

Modern shale gas development is a technologically driven process for the 

production of natural gas resources. Currently, the drilling and completion 

of shale gas wells includes both vertical and horizontal wells. In both kinds 

of wells, casing and cement are installed to protect fresh and treatable 

water aquifers. The emerging shale gas basins are expected to follow a 

trend similar to the Barnett Shale play with increasing numbers of horizontal wells as the plays mature. Shale gas operators are increasingly relying on horizontal well completions to optimize recovery and well economics. 

Horizontal drilling provides more exposure to a formation than does a 

vertical well. This increase in reservoir exposure creates a number of advantages over vertical wells drilling. Six to eight horizontal wells drilled 

from only one well pad can access the same reservoir volume as sixteen 

vertical wells. Using multi-well pads can also significantly reduce the overall number of well pads, access roads, pipeline routes, and production facilities required, thus minimizing habitat disturbance, impacts to the public, 

and the overall environmental footprint. 

The Primer explains the issue more precisely: 

Analysis performed in 2008 for the U.S. Department of the Interior estimated that a shallow vertical gas well completed in the Fayetteville Shale 

in Arkansas would have a 2.0-acre well pad, 0.10 miles of road and 0.55 

miles of utility corridor, resulting in a total of 4.8 acres of disturbance per 

well. The same source identified a horizontal well pad in Arkansas as occupying, approximately 3.5 acres plus roads and utilities, resulting in a total 

of 6.9 acres. If multiple horizontal wells are completed from a single well 

pad it may require the pad to be enlarged slightly. Estimating that this enlargement will result in a 0.5-acre increase, the 4-well horizontal pad with 

roads and utilities would disturb an estimated total of 7.4 acres, while the 

16 vertical wells would disturb approximately 77 acres. In this example, 16 

vertical wells would disturb more than 10 times the area of 4 horizontal 

wells to produce the same resource volume. This difference in development 

footprint when considered in terms of both rural and urban development 

scenarios highlights the desire for operators to move towards horizontal development of gas shale plays. 

From an environmental standpoint, the advantages are obvious. The surface impact is one-tenth or less than its historic impact. The amount of land used to manage drilling fluids and produced water is dramatically reduced. The environmental 

risks are more directly and easily managed. Moreover, as the use of advanced techniques like horizontal drilling technology increases, fewer wells will be needed to 

generate the same amount of production. For example, prior to 2008, more than 

31,000 annual new gas wells were required to sustain 58 BCF/d of gas production; 

now it is possible to produce almost 63 BCF/d with the drilling of only 19,000 new 

gas wells per year. 

As described above, the DEIS justifications suggest that the underlying issue associated with the preferred alternative of no horizontal drilling is the use of hydraulic fracturing. Clearly, the development of shale gas and shale oil resources hinges 

on the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The DEIS supporting documents demonstrate that there are no indications that hydraulic fracturing has 

caused any issues of environmental harm, that its regulated use protects against its 

environmental risk. Consequently, it turns the other linchpin of shale gas development—horizontal drilling. In reality, these technologies and the attendant reguVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
47 

latory structures or their use are proven, effective controls. In reality, the environmental groups opposing the development of American fossil fuels are the driving 

force in creating anxieties about both technologies and the regulatory programs 

managing their use. 

The history of the hydraulic fracturing issue is illustrative. Hydraulic fracturing 

is a technique used to allow natural gas and oil to move more freely from the rock 

pores where they are trapped to a producing well that can bring them to the surface. The technology was developed in the late 1940s and has been continuously improved and applied since that time. In a hydraulic fracturing job, the fluid pumped 

into the well contains a proppant (usually sand) to keep the fracture open. This 

proppant collects inside the created fracture, so when the fracture tries to close, it 

cannot. The proppant holds it open. 

State ground water regulation was developed long before hydraulic fracturing 

began. These regulations established well construction standards including steel 

casing and cementing requirements. They were designed to protect ground water 

from contamination by oil and its produced water. The environmental risks from oil 

and produced water are far more significant than those from a hydraulic fracturing 

solution that is 99.5 percent water and sand. These regulations created a control 

svstem that has effectively prevented contamination of drinking water, effective in 

the more than a million times that hydraulic fracturing has been used. 

Years after state regulations protecting ground water were implemented, Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974. By then, hydraulic 

fracturing had been used for 25 years with no environmental problems. Under the 

SDWA, states developed extensive Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs 

to manage liquid wastes and the reinjection of produced waters. These programs addressed liquids intended to be injected—and to remain—in underground geologic formations. By 1980 Congress—recognizing the need for further state flexibility—modified the SDWA to give states federal ‘‘primacy’’ based on comparable state oil and 

gas UIC programs. 

At no time during these debates was there any suggestion of including hydraulic 

fracturing in the UIC waste management requirements. In the mid-1990s the Legal 

Environmental Assistance Foundation (LEAF), after years of failing to make an environmental case against coalbed methane development, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require Alabama to regulate hydraulic fracturing 

under the UIC program. EPA rejected LEAF, arguing that Congress never intended 

UIC to cover hydraulic fracturing. LEAF appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

In 1997, the 11th Circuit Court decided the LEAF v EPA case. The Court never 

addressed the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing; it merely decided that 

the plain language of the statute included hydraulic fracturing as underground injection. 

Not an issue at the time the SDWA passed, Congress did not specifically exclude 

hydraulic fracturing. Two decades later, a court ignored the facts of the issue and 

changed the scope of the law on a technicality. 

However, in response to public concerns, EPA initiated a study of coalbed methane hydraulic fracturing environmental risks because these formations are situated 

closest to ground water. EPA released the competed study in June 2004. No environmental risks of proper hydraulic fracturing were identified. 

Analysis of the environmental risks of the technology showed it to be safe, but 

the nation’s ability to develop its critical oil and natural gas was at risk because 

of the LEAF cases. Recognizing the need to provide legislative clarity and that the 

existing state regulatory system provided effective environmental protection, Congress addressed the issue of hydraulic fracturing under the SDWA in the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. 

The Energy Policy Act preserved the state regulatory system that has worked so 

effectively for the past half century. It clarified that the SDWA was not the appropriate regulatory law for hydraulic fracturing with one exception. During the analysis of environmental risk from hydraulic fracturing, EPA hypothesized that the use 

of diesel fuel as a solvent in the fracturing process of coalbeds might pose a risk. 

While no incidents of damage have occurred, Congress preserved the option for the 

application of the SDWA for regulation if diesel fuel was utilized. For five years following the 2005 SDWA amendments, EPA took no action under this new authority. 

Then, in 2010, without notice and comment, EPA posted on its website an interpretation that wells fractured using diesel fuel would he considered as Class II UIC 

wells-a position it had argued against in the LEAF cases. IPAA and others have 

challenged EPA’s website rulemaking and court action is pending. 

Meanwhile, in 2009, the Ground Water Protection Council reviewed state regulations designed to protect water resources. It again concluded that these regulations 

48 

were adequately designed to protect water resources. Yet, later that year, Congress 

requested another EPA study of hydraulic fracturing; it is underway. 

Emerging from the 2005 debate, a number of environmental groups initiated efforts throughout the country to create opposition to the use of hydraulic fracturing. 

Since no incidents of drinking water contamination have occurred from the use of 

hydraulic fracturing, these efforts could not credibly raise arguments of unmanaged 

environmental risk. Instead, the focus became an aggressive three pronged strategy. 

First, communities were inundated with allegations about the chemicals in the fracturing solutions—not that exposure had occurred, just that chemicals were used. 

Second, the existing regulatory process and the regulators were demeaned. Third, 

federalization is presented as the only acceptable solution. 

The most visible aspect of this strategy is the recurring focus on disclosure of the 

chemicals used in the fracturing process. Natural gas and oil producers do not oppose the disclosure of the chemicals used in fracturing. However, because the chemical mixtures involve confidential business information, the execution of disclosure 

is not straightforward. Several states have initiated disclosure requirements. Recently, the GWPC and IOGCC started FracFocus—a website that will provide detailed information on the chemicals used in the fracturing process on a well by well 

basis. IPAA and other national oil and natural gas production trade associations 

have strongly endorsed FracFocus as the best approach to deal with a national registry on fracturing chemical disclosure. The primary issue, however, continues to be 

whether the regulatory process protects ground water resources since chemicals will 

always be a part of the production of oil and natural gas. With about one million 

operating oil and natural gas wells in the United States, tens of thousands of wells 

being drilled annually and only a small number of problem incidents, it is clear that 

the process is sound and effective. 

Equally clear, the drumbeat of opposition to developing American oil and natural 

is taking a toll. Faced with a history of effective regulation, the opposition’s principal strategy remains distorting the risks, demeaning the regulators and demanding federalization. Despite a record of supporting the development of both horizontal 

drilling and hydraulic fracturing through the Department of Energy over the past 

several decades, the current Administration now sends mixed and uncertain signals 

regarding the development of these American resources. Having primarily supported 

green energy paths that cannot grow fast enough to meet America’s energy demand, 

it cannot now decide if it is willing to embrace the opportunities presented by American natural gas as a clean, abundant and affordable resource and the potential of 

expanding American oil production for the first time in decades. The George Washington National Forest Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land 

and Resource Management Plan reflects this underlying Administration indecision. 

Mr. LAMBORN [presiding]. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Mayer? 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG L. MAYER, ESQ., GENERAL COUNSEL, 

PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ENERGY, LLC 

Mr. MAYER. Chairman Thompson, Chairman Lamborn, thank 

you for inviting me to appear. By way of background, the Allegheny 

National Forest is located in Northwest Pennsylvania, and it 

shares 93 percent of its 513,000 acres with owners of private oil, 

gas and mineral estates and has done so since the forestlands were 

first acquired in the 1920s and 1930s. 

The mineral development on this acreage is competently and rigorously regulated by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. When the Forest Service acquired these acres, 

as well as most of the 20 million acres of Weeks Act lands now 

found in 42 states, it purposely did not purchase the oil, gas and 

mineral estates. 

At the very heart of the matter is Section 9 of the 1911 Weeks 

Act. It, along with other safeguards in the Act, severely restricts 

or precludes the Forest Service from controlling the exercise of 

mineral rights or any other property rights that it did not acquire 

when it bought the surface lands from private citizens. Because it 

49 

now desires to control and even extinguish these rights, the Forest 

Service wants to effectively repeal and reverse the effect of Section 

9 and has been attempting through various administrative maneuvers and artifices to do so. 

With respect to the Allegheny National Forest, this began in 

early 2007. To date, its actions have spawned seven lawsuits, one 

administrative appeal of a Forest Plan, threats by armed Forest 

Service personnel to prosecute and arrest producers, one wholly 

baseless criminal charge, unwarranted and increasing delays in reviewing drilling notifications, decreased oil and gas production and 

economic hardship for hundreds of individuals, families and small 

businesses. 

Forest Service efforts to impede development activities have been 

persistent and hostile. The string of actions even include, and I am 

not making this up, the Regional Forester for the Eastern Region 

organizing and appointing an Allegheny Oil and Gas Strike Team. 

In March 2007, in a Forest Plan revision, Forest Service officers 

secretly crafted and then imposed a regulatory regime on private 

mineral estates. Only costly administrative appeals forced the 

Forest Service to acknowledge it had acted illegally in concealing 

this and not providing for public notice and comment and then to 

suspend application of its rules. 

In March 2008, to stop mineral owners from quarrying road surfacing the Forest Supervisor, noting remarkably that the laws, regulations and policies had simply been misapplied for the previous 

85 years, asserted United States ownership of all sandstone and 

shale rock found on the forest. 

In December 2008, specifically in support of then pending litigation—by this point in time three cases had been filed—the national 

office initiated a rulemaking to impose a Federal regulatory regime 

on private oil and gas estates. 

In April 2009, incredibly at the height of the most severe economic recession since the 1930s and again behind closed doors, it 

entered into an agreement with activist environmentalist groups to 

shut down new drilling across the entire forest. This was done in 

a sweetheart settlement agreement that included a very unusual 

clause, noting that the Forest Service just happened to possess unrestricted regulatory authority over private mineral estates. 

Fortunately, a Federal Judge finding that the Forest Service did 

not possess such authority issued a preliminary injunction on December 15, 2009, blocking any further implementation of the agreement and lifting the drilling ban. 

In early 2011, the Forest Service renewed its 2008 rulemaking 

effort. Again behind closed doors, it is once again taking action to 

grant itself regulatory authority along with drafting rules aimed at 

evading the December 2009 injunction by imposing costly and interminably lengthy NEPA requirements on wholly private development activities. 

In closing, I believe that all stakeholders can use our natural resources in a way that effectively provides for jobs, energy security 

and environmental protection. Your Subcommittees are in the perfect place to help us achieve that. This is not the time for the 

Forest Service to continue its efforts and to increase the regulatory 

burdens on our citizens and small businesses. 

50 

Thank you very much for taking your interest in these issues, 

and I am prepared to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mayer follows:] 

Statement of Craig L. Mayer, General Counsel, 

Pennsylvania General Energy Company L.L.C. 

I. Background and Introduction 

1. Since 2004, I have been the chief legal counsel for Pennsylvania General Energy Company L.L.C (‘‘PGE’’), which is headquartered in Warren, Pennsylvania. I 

also serve as a Secretary of the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association 

(‘‘PIOGA’’). PGE is a member of PIOGA. PGE has approximately 150 employees and 

is engaged in oil and gas exploration and production, primarily in Pennsylvania, and 

it currently produces oil and gas from over 850 wells in the Allegheny National Forest (‘‘ANF’’) that have been developed over the past 25 years in an oil and gas field 

that was first discovered shortly after the Civil War. PGE owns approximately 

40,000 acres of oil and gas lands in the ANF, and substantial oil and gas acreage 

elsewhere. 

2. By way of personal background, I obtained a Juris Doctor degree from 

Duquesne University Law School in 1974, and am a graduate of the Pennsylvania 

State University (1968). From 1968 to 1992, I served in the U.S. Marine Corps in 

various command and staff postings, and I was honorably discharged with the rank 

of Lt. Colonel. As a civilian from 2000 to 2002, I served in association with seconded 

State Department personnel in Egypt and Israel as an International Observer and 

Team Leader with the U.S. Observer Unit of the Multi-National Force and Observers (‘‘MFO’’). The MFO monitors Egyptian and Israeli compliance with the Camp 

David Peace Treaty Accords. 

3. The ANF encompasses approximately 513,000 acres which cover major parts of 

four counties in northwestern Pennsylvania, i.e., Elk, Forest, Warren and McKean 

Counties. Notably, 93% of the ANF lands are underlain by private severed oil and 

gas mineral estates. When the ANF lands were acquired by the federal government 

in the 1920s and 1930s, the Forest Service purposely did not acquire the private 

oil and gas estates. In fact, under Section 9 of the 1911 Weeks Act, 16 U.S.C. § 518, 

before the United States could even purchase surface lands that had been severed 

from oil and gas estates before the time of the United States purchase, both the Secretary of Agriculture and the National Forest Reservation Commission had to find 

that such estates ‘‘from their nature’’ would ‘‘in no manner interfere’’ with the use 

of the land for the purposes of the Act. The Forest Service viewed oil and gas production as not in conflict with forestry management purposes, and that view continued until recently. 

4. The ANF region is the birthplace of the oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania, 

the United States, and the world. The first oil well in the world, the Drake Well, 

was drilled in 1859, about 15 miles from the current southwestern ANF boundary. 

Oil and gas production has occurred in this region for well over a century, including 

on the ANF lands. It is a vital part of the culture of the communities in the region 

and our economic base. For example, PIOGA estimates that annually approximately 

25% of the oil produced in Pennsylvania comes from estates within the ANF. There 

are approximately 60 producers and, at least, an equal number of supporting businesses who rely on natural resource development within the ANF, these groups 

being composed almost exclusively of individuals, families, and small companies. 

Traditionally, the U.S. Forest Service respected multiple use of the ANF and cooperated with oil and gas producers. This all changed beginning in 2007 and particularly 

so in early 2009, as I will describe. For the past few years, the people, municipalities 

and small businesses of northwestern Pennsylvania have been in a battle with the 

U.S. Forest Service for their livelihoods and economic survival. That battle is unfortunately ongoing. 

II. The U.S. Forest Service’s 2009 Effort to Shut-Down Drilling and Economic Activity in the ANF 

5. At the height of the most severe national recession since the 1930s, the U.S. 

Forest Service incredibly agreed behind closed doors in a ‘‘sweetheart’’ Settlement 

Agreement with the Sierra Club and other activist groups to shut-down new drilling 

across the entire 513,000-acre ANF. I am keenly familiar with the 2009 Settlement 

Agreement between the U.S. Forest Service and the Sierra Club, filed on April 9, 

2009 in the case of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (‘‘FSEEE’’) 

and the Sierra Club et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 1:08-cv-323–SJM (W.D. Pa.). 

PIOGA’s predecessor association and the Allegheny Forest Alliance (‘‘AFA’’), a group 

51 

of municipalities and school districts, were intervenors in the case, but had no 

knowledge of the terms of this harmful Settlement Agreement until the day it was 

filed in court, despite our prior requests made through our legal counsel to participate in settlement discussions. A Statement by ANF Supervisor Leanne Marten on 

April 10, 2009 (‘‘Marten Statement’’) implemented the Settlement Agreement. Fortunately, as I explain later, on December 15, 2009, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to block the Settlement Agreement, and save our region from economic ruin. 

6. The 2009 Settlement Agreement adopted without any public input, particularly 

from elected officials of the ANF region, radically changed the legal regime applicable to oil and gas exploration and development activities in the ANF, by subjecting 

the Forest Service’s issuances of ‘‘Notices to Proceed’’ for oil and gas wells to burdensome compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 4332 (‘‘NEPA’’). Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement before carrying out ‘‘major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.’’ Under the Settlement 

Agreement, the Forest Service sought to bind itself to apply NEPA to each individual Notice to Proceed, which had previously been a mere notice of the conclusion 

of a 60-day consultation process, not a federal permit document. 

3. A 1991 U.S. Congressional hearing fortunately documented the past cooperative 

practices of the U.S. Forest Service regarding oil and gas activities in the ANF, 

which viewed NEPA as inapplicable to the exercise of private mineral estates. In 

the 1991 House Oversight Hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Kostmayer reviewed 

the Forest Service’s practices regarding ANF mineral development. See Oil and Gas 

Operations in the Allegheny National Forest, Northwestern Pennsylvania, Oversight 

Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Energy of the House Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991), at 1–6 (‘‘1991 Oversight Hearing’’). At the 

hearing, the Forest Service stressed its limited legal authority as a matter of property law, agency practice, and a 1980 federal court ruling in United States v. Minard 

Run Oil Co., No. 80–129, 1980 LEXIS 9570 (W.D.Pa. Dec. 16, 1980). 1991 Oversight 

Hearing at 50–128, 138–255. For example, former ANF Forest Supervisor Wright’s 

written statement said that: 

Our land management decisions cannot preclude the ability of private mineral owners to make reasonable use of the surface for mineral exploration 

and development activities, since such rights are defined by the private mineral deed and public law. Our challenge is to protect the rights of the Federal Government, while respecting private mineral rights, and ensuring 

that private mineral owners and operators take reasonable and prudent 

measures to prevent unnecessary disturbance to the surface.... 

1991 Oversight Hearing at 54–55 (emphasis added). He added: ‘‘We do not give people permission to drill. That is their right. It is not a Federal action. . .. We review 

the plan and negotiate a plan with them. We do not approve a plan.... 1991 Oversight Hearing at 75–79, 113 (emphasis added). 

4. The 1991 Oversight Hearing record on the ANF provided an official summary 

of a U.S. Agriculture Department Office of General Counsel opinion, dated October 

1991, concluding that NEPA does not apply to exercise of ‘‘outstanding’’ mineral 

rights: 

[W]e do not find that exercise of such rights on National Forest land in 

Pennsylvania to be a federal action for NEPA purposes. This is so, in part, 

because Forest Service approval is not a legal condition precedent to the exercise of such rights under either state law, current federal law or regulation, or Forest Service Policy. See for example FSM 2832. 

*** 

The question of whether the right can be exercised, and the ability to deny 

that right, is simply not left to the surface owner under Pennsylvania law! 

A ‘‘reasonable use’’ standard does govern the exercise of such rights, but it 

also recognizes the limited role of the surface owner in the process. In other 

words, if the exercise of such rights extends beyond what is reasonable, as 

was the situation some years ago in the instance of Minard Run, then your 

recourse is to move to protect your rights as surface owner, to reach a reasonable accommodation so that each may enjoy their respective rights.... 

That practice does not elevate your involvement to a federal action for NEPA 

purposes.’’ 

1991 Oversight Hearing at 192–93 (emphasis added). This was the way things 

worked for decades on a cooperative basis in the ANF, and on the other 22 million 

52 

acres of land of National Forests with private mineral estates acquired under the 

1911 Weeks Act, 16 U.S.C. § 518. 

5. The 2009 Settlement Agreement sought to change entirely the governing legal 

regime and practices without any corresponding change in the applicable law and 

regulations. This is confirmed by the Statement from Forest Supervisor Leanne 

Marten, dated April 10, 2009, which declares that ‘‘All remaining pending, and all 

future, oil and gas proposals on the Allegheny National Forest will be processed after 

the appropriate level of environmental analysis has been conducted under NEPA.’’ 

Forest Service officials publicly confirmed that new oil and gas drilling activities 

could not be carried out until a full Forest-wide EIS under NEPA is completed and 

a Notice to Proceed is issued. Of course, we understood that a forest-wide EIS would 

be a multi-year process, likely taking at least four to five years, and more before appeals were resolved. 

6. Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement imposed a de facto drilling ban in 2009 

on future oil and gas exploration and development across the entire 513,000-acre 

ANF for years into the future. The U.S. Forest Service sought to enforce the drilling 

ban with a heavy hand. Within two weeks of announcing the Settlement Agreement, 

it created what was called an ‘‘Allegheny Oil and Gas Strike Team’’ and issued unlawful ‘‘requests’’ for information from oil and gas operators and imposed processing 

delays if they did not respond. In early 2009, shortly after the FSEEE case was commenced, the Forest Service charged at least one individual officer of an oil and gas 

company with a misdemeanor, a case the government never ultimately pursued. As 

a former military and federal prosecutor, and being well versed in the applicable 

law, this misdemeanor matter appeared to me to be a deliberate abuse of Forest 

Service petty offense enforcement authority. It was perfectly clear from the fact situation that there was no basis upon which to allege a criminal offense. To protect 

PIOGA members from the abuse of the criminal process, I took the measure of preparing a legal memorandum strongly objecting to this behavior and sent it to both 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office. Sadly, 

in the past four years, employees and owners of oil and gas businesses have been 

threatened by the Forest Service with criminal prosecution if they proceeded with 

their ordinary business activities in the ANF. To my knowledge, the Forest Service 

threatened at least four individuals. It was particularly troubling for me to learn 

of Armed Forest Service personnel confronting citizens, prominent leaders in our 

communities, engaged in lawful oil and gas development activities and directing 

them to cease, or face arrest. 

7. Notably, the April 10, 2009 Statement by Forest Supervisor Marten admitted 

the severe adverse economic impact which the Settlement Agreement would have 

on the local communities surrounding the ANF. The Marten Statement (at p. 1) 

stated in part as follows: ‘‘we acknowledge the impact this will have on families and 

businesses, especially at a time when our nation is facing such a difficult economic 

downturn.’’ The Marten Statement (at p. 1) makes the following additional points: 

‘‘There is no easy explanation of why this is occurring....For some, this impact may 

be short-term and for others it may be a lifetime.’’ 

8. I firmly believe the 2009 Settlement Agreement was punitive, even retaliatory, 

in nature. If it remained in force, it would have had an irrevocable, profound, massive, and devastating adverse impact on oil and gas production activity in the ANF 

and upon the economy, communities, and people of the surrounding region dependant on this development activity. Fortunately, a federal court intervened in late 

2009 and blocked the unlawful drilling ban, as I will now explain. 

III. The December 15, 2009 Judicial Relief Granted by Federal Judge Sean 

McLaughlin 

9. On December 15, 2009, a federal judge in western Pennsylvania, the Honorable 

Sean J. McLaughlin, granted a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Forest Service and the Sierra Club, barring the implementation of the 2009 Settlement Agreement. See Minard Run Oil Co. and Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association. v. U.S. 

Forest Service, et al., 2009 WL 4937785 (W.D. Pa. 2009). Judge McLaughlin wrote 

a detailed opinion finding that the Settlement Agreement was likely contrary to law, 

contrary to the Forest Service’s past practices, and causing irreparable harm to oil 

and gas businesses in the ANF region. He issued his ruling following a three-day 

evidentiary hearing where he heard testimony from approximately 15 witnesses, including PGE’s President Douglas Kuntz, all subject to cross-examination. 

10. Judge McLaughlin’s opinion concluded that the ‘‘Forest Service does not possess the regulatory authority that it asserts relative to the processing of oil and gas 

drilling proposals.’’ He added that consequently, ‘‘its involvement in the approval 

process does not constitute a major federal action requiring NEPA compliance.’’ 

Judge McLaughlin found that the ‘‘continued denial of access to privately held propVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
53 

erty rights and the irreparable harm flowing therefrom if the injunction is denied, 

imposes a far more significant hardship on...[the oil and gas companies] than would 

a return to the status quo on the Forest Service.’’ Judge McLaughlin also stated that 

there was a ‘‘clear public interest in preventing unreasonable interference with private property rights.’’ Accordingly, he granted a preliminary injunction, barring implementation of the Settlement Agreement and directed an immediate return to 

prior practices which had been the status quo. 

11. We are very grateful for the judicial relief provided by Judge McLaughlin, but 

the U.S. Forest Service still resisted and moved for reconsideration of his ruling, 

which he denied on March 9, 2010, following an additional hearing in his court. Not 

content with adhering to the Judge’s preliminary injunction ruling, both the U.S. 

Forest Service and the Sierra Club appealed the preliminary injunction order to the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which heard argument on the appeal 

sitting in Philadelphia in late January, 2011. Fortunately, the judicial relief provided by Judge McLaughlin has remained in force while that appeal is pending, and 

we expect a ruling any time now. 

IV. Forest Service Actions in 2007 and 2008 Leading up to the Settlement 

Agreement 

12. Sometime between publication of ANF’s draft revised Forest Plan in 2006 and 

approval of the final plan in March 2007 the Forest Service attempted to insert a 

regulatory scheme into its Forest Plan. This was done under the guise of modifying 

planning ‘‘standards’’ and ‘‘guidelines,’’ that included, among other things, a new 

and unprecedented federal permit requirement for regulating the conduct of privately owned and state regulated oil and gas development. PIOGA and many of its 

individual members promptly appealed this action through administrative channels. 

As the regulatory scheme was clearly added to the Plan secretly and concealed from 

the public the Forest Service was forced to acknowledge that it had acted illegally. 

To remedy its failings it issued an Appeal decision in February 2008 that suspended application of the scheme until public notice and comment requirements 

were satisfied and the Forest Service’s authority for imposing a new layer of regulations in the first place was ‘‘clarified.’’ As the PIOGA objected to approval and imposition of a federal regulatory scheme in the first instance, and the Forest Service 

appeal decision formally approved the regulatory scheme, it was no comfort to learn 

that all the Forest Service’s was going to do was paper-over its illegal conduct by 

providing a meaningless public comment period and giving itself the opportunity to 

clean-up (i.e., ‘‘clarify’’) language found in the Plan that was inconsistent with its 

new found regulatory authority. PIOGA challenged this conduct in the case of Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 1:08-cv-162-SJM (W.D. 

Pa.). That case has been stayed pending issuance of the Third Circuit decision noted 

above. 

13. While directing itself to suspend application of its regulatory scheme on the 

ANF the Forest Service was still committed to impeding private oil and gas development. On March 28, 2008, and within six weeks of the Appeal decision Forest Supervisor Marten, repudiating over 85 years of practice and legal precedent, issued 

a letter decision prohibiting oil, gas, and mineral owners from using certain ‘‘mineral materials’’ found on their private mineral estates. Remarkable in its denouncement it proclaimed that ‘‘It has come to my attention that the application of the laws, 

regulations, and policies governing the disposal of mineral materials off of National 

Forest System lands have not been appropriately applied on the Allegheny National 

Forest.’’ It then proceeded, by reference to a long-existent Forest Service regulation 

that applies only to a certain category of federally owned minerals, to claim ownership of all minerals in that same category that were, as well, found on privately 

owned mineral estates. This was done regardless of what deeds or state property 

laws prescribed to the contrary. Effectively, the Forest Service attempted to confiscate as many as 483,000 acres of certain privately owned minerals with nothing 

more than a bureaucratic edict. The purpose of the edict was to prevent mineral 

owners from using stone for the surfacing of oil and gas roads and well pads. 

14. In the fall of 2008 When PGE advised Forest Supervisor Marten that it was 

going to explore for and take sandstone and shale on lands for those purposes and 

where PGE had been conveyed the named minerals PGE was invited to file a 

‘‘claim’’ under the federal Quiet Title Act. In 2008, when one mineral owner indeed 

did file an action under the Quiet Title Act regarding stone ownership, the Forest 

Service promptly invoked the twelve year (12) statute of limitations that accompanies the Act and asserted that it had somehow managed to have notified the 

owner of its claim to the stone over 12 years before the mineral owner filed suit. 

As a consequence, certainly not lost on the Forest Service, if the District Court concludes that the statute of limitations applies and has run, the mineral owner could 

54 

not maintain a claim and would forfeit his mineral rights. This would be so even 

if it was perfectly clear from the deeds and Pennsylvania law that the mineral 

owner owned the stone. I am confident that this legal ruse was not one of the methods of land acquisition to which the state of Pennsylvania consented when it authorized the United States to acquire private lands from its citizens. The case I referred 

to is PAPCO v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 1:08-cv-253–MBC (W.D. Pa). The District 

Court decision in that case is pending. 

15. While the ANF was adjusting to the suspension of its regulatory scheme the 

processing time for Forest Service responses to drilling notifications was showing little improvement from what producers had experienced in 2007. Following the approval of the Forest Plan in March 2007 processing response times had quickly expanded from 60 days or less to five and six months. In short, even with the suspension, there was continued resistance and opposition to accommodating oil and gas 

development. In the lead-up to the filing of the FSEEE case this found expression 

in an internal Forest Service e-mail dated October 8, 2008 where Forest Service Officers were considering, among other things, notifying ‘‘recreational stakeholders’’ of 

oil and gas developments that the ANF objected to such that it might result in a 

suit against the Forest Service ‘‘based upon a failure to perform NEPA analysis.’’ 

Within six weeks, such a suit just happened to materialize when the FSEEE filed 

against the Forest Service on November 20, 2008. 

V. Continued and Increasing U.S. Forest Service Slow-Down of Processing 

Drilling Proposals and new Obstructions 

16. Judge McLaughlin’s opinion of December 15, 2009 found that 60 days was the 

traditional timeframe allowed for the Forest Service to process well drilling proposals and consult with operators about desired surface mitigation measures. Since 

shortly after the entering of the Court’s preliminary injunction in December 2009, 

the Forest Service has provided me (in response to FOIA requests) with bi-weekly 

or monthly reports showing statistics related to the processing of private oil and gas 

development (‘‘OGD’’) notifications on the ANF. We have tabulated the data to calculate the time it is taking for the ANF to process the OGD notifications that the 

ANF has received since the issuance of the court’s injunction on December 15, 2009. 

The statistics show that on average it is now taking over seven months for the ANF 

to process or deal with notifications before it issues a ‘‘Notice to Proceed,’’ and that 

since July 15, 2010 the processing time has expanded from four months to the current seven months. 

17. Simply put, these continuing and increasing delays by the U.S. Forest Service 

are excessive and not consistent with past procedures and the 60-day timeframe 

that was previously adhered to by the ANF. Apparently, the timely processing of 

drilling proposals to enable job creating activity is not a priority with this U.S. Forest Service, even when a federal court order directs that this be done. 

VI. The U.S. Forest Service Rulemaking Effort 

18. Beyond this, the Forest Service has been seeking ways through a rulemaking 

process to evade the Judge McLaughlin’s ruling which granted critically needed relief to us. Specifically, they have initiated a rulemaking process which would seek 

to grant themselves regulatory authority which the Judge has found they lacked. 

The Forest Service first started this process back in December 2008 with the initiation of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. See 73 

Fed. Reg. 79,424 (Dec. 29, 2008) (re ‘‘Management of National Forest System Surface Resources with Privately Held Mineral Estates’’). That notice and comment 

rulemaking would specifically address the ANF, and other National Forests. Any 

such rulemaking would have to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 

U.S.C. § 551 et seq., and other procedural and substantive requirements, such as the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., which requires federal agencies to 

assess the adverse economic impacts of their actions on small businesses, and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501, et seq., which aims to minimize paperwork burdens on those who must respond to federal government requests for information. By seeking to adopt a new command and control regulatory approval process and impose burdensome NEPA review requirements, the Forest Service is effectively seeking to evade the ruling of the federal court. 

19. By way of a FOIA request we obtained a copy of the Forest Service’s internal 

Regulatory Review Workplan that was used as justification for issuance of the ‘‘NonSignificant’’ designation that accompanied the December 29, 2008 Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking. The entire Workplan consists of a five page form with fillin the blank and check the box styled entries or statements. It has no supporting 

documentation. After a careful review, on January 5, 2011, PIOGA requested the 

USDA Office of Inspector General to investigate the preparation of this document 

55 

as it appeared to contain false statements. I understand that that investigation is 

now in progress. 

20. As recently as the fall of 2010 in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory 

Actions, the Forest Service identified this private mineral estate rulemaking as still 

proceeding, and incredibly claimed that it would not cause adverse economic impacts 

on small business entities. We have obtained through FOIA requests a copy of a 

Forest Service summary of the rulemaking that was underway as of early 2011 

when the Forest Service was consulting with hundreds of Native American tribes 

about the rulemaking. A copy of that U.S. Forest Service summary, dated 

February 9, 2011, along with U.S. Forest Service letters dated January 27, 2011 

and March 21, 2011, are attached to this testimony and establish that draft proposed rules have been in existence since at least January 27, 2011. Yet, the Forest 

Service has not consulted with the Congress, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

and PIOGA, about the rulemaking. 

21. At the April 5, 2011 hearing of the House Sub-committee on Energy and Natural Resources Congressman Thompson asked a testifying Forest Service Official, 

the Director of Minerals and Geology Management, the status of the regulation that 

the Forest Service was drafting about private mineral estates. Remarkably and dishearteningly, the witness denied that there was a draft of the proposed rules. 

22. As the Forest Service summary dated February 9, 2011, reveals, the draft 

rulemaking would seek to impose the NEPA process on the exercise of private mineral estates in National Forest lands, something which the federal court has declared unlawful. Furthermore, this rulemaking would apply to mineral estates nationwide, not merely in Pennsylvania, and would impose widespread multi-year prohibitions on oil and gas activity while costly NEPA studies were prepared. This 

would include National Forests with prospective oil and gas interest in the States 

of Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, 

Texas, Indiana, Michigan, and North Dakota, among others. 

23. The Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, has recently expressed his strong 

concerns about this U.S. Forest Service rulemaking in a letter dated June 14, 2011 

to the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, and a copy of that letter is attached to my 

testimony. In addition, Pennsylvania State Senator Mary Jo White, who is Chair of 

the Pennsylvania Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, has expressed her strong concern about this rulemaking to Secretary of Agriculture 

Vilsack and Forest Service Chief Tidwell in a letter dated March 31, 2011, a copy 

of which is attached to this testimony as well. 

24. Finally, in closing, I would be remiss if I didn’t refer the Sub-committees to 

language penned 100 years ago that speaks loudly and clearly to us today. On April 

15, 1910 in what would be the last in a decade-long line of proposed forest reserve 

bills and Congressional reports leading up to the passage of the Weeks Act the 

House Committee on Agriculture issued a warning and as we know now—a prophecy. Following brief descriptions of each of the 15 sections of the act the Committee 

noted: ‘‘It will be observed from this review of the provisions of the bill that the interests of the people are carefully safeguarded at every point beyond any possibility of 

invasion, except by collusion of highest officials of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of the Government.’’ House Report # 1036, Committee on Agriculture, April 15, 1910, to accompany H.R. 11798, at page 2. 

On behalf of PGE and PIOGA and in furtherance of seeing that the interests of 

the people of Pennsylvania are not further invaded, I thank the members of the subcommittees here today for your interest and help on these issues which are of vital 

importance to northwestern Pennsylvania, and many other regions of our nation. 

Attachments: 

1. Forest Service Proposed Rulemaking Summary, dated February 9, 2011. 

2. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett Letter to U.S. Forest Service Chief Tidwell, dated June 14, 2011. 

3. Pennsylvania Senator Mary Jo White Letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack and 

U.S. Forest Service Chief Tidwell, dated March 31, 2011. 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Ms. Wofford? 

56 

STATEMENT OF KATE GIESE WOFFORD, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SHENANDOAH VALLEY NETWORK 

Ms. WOFFORD. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. It is 

truly an honor for me to have the chance to be a witness this afternoon. 

My name is Kate Wofford, and I serve as Director of the Shenandoah Valley Network. We work with local citizens groups to preserve rural lands and communities in the Shenandoah Valley. The 

Network is a very small nonprofit. I am the only full-time staff 

member. 

I hope today to provide the Valley’s unique perspective on natural gas drilling, particularly the strong support among elected officials and area residents for a ban on horizontal drilling in the 

George Washington National Forest. 

Public lands on the George Washington make up a quarter of the 

land in three Valley counties and serve as a source of local drinking water for a quarter of a million people in and around the Valley. The forest provides many benefits to the region and to the 

country, traditional uses like hunting, fishing and hiking, as well 

as wildlife habitat and timber resources. 

Since 2007, long before natural gas drilling emerged as a possibility, the Valley’s elected officials and residents started asking 

forest planners to formally identify and protect the public drinking 

water source on the forest. Seven counties, plus numerous towns, 

cities and civic groups, adopted formal resolutions urging the 

Forest Service to carefully manage drinking water quality and supply. 

Later, in 2010 when the Valley was faced with its first proposal 

for a Marcellus shale natural gas well, the local leaders took a conservative and cautious approach. Rockingham County officials 

drove five hours each way to visit Wetzel County, West Virginia, 

where this type of gas drilling is in full swing. They took along one 

of the citizen leaders I work with, Kim Sandum. 

Not one person on the trip came back to Rockingham County and 

said this is an industry we would like to develop here. In fact, local 

governments in the farm community have concerns that horizontal 

drilling may be incompatible with the investments of our region’s 

traditional rural sectors and could actually do more harm than 

good. 

The Rockingham County Farm Bureau adopted a resolution this 

spring supporting natural gas development, but opposing high volume hydraulic fracturing. Not surprisingly, when the opportunity 

to influence management of the public forestlands came up again 

last fall, localities in the Valley asked the Forest Service to limit 

or ban hydraulic fracturing. 

Rockingham, Augusta and Shenandoah Counties, as well as city 

councils in Harrisonburg and Staunton, all wrote letters or passed 

resolutions. Numerous local citizens expressed similar concerns. 

Thankfully, the forest planners carefully studied the issue and responded with a proposal that reflects local concerns, a prohibition 

on horizontal drilling on Federal lands, oil and gas leases. 

We have a landowner at the hearing here this morning in the audience, Mr. Everett May, Jr., from Rockingham County. His family 

has farmed land next to the George Washington for several generaVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
57 

tions. Mr. May signed a lease for gas drilling in 2006 thinking it 

would be a simple vertical well. Then he found out about the potential impacts of Marcellus shale gas drilling, and he told me that he 

would give that lease back if he could. But he can’t. 

So Mr. May and many of his neighbors asked the county supervisors to see that a conservative approach is taken on private 

lands, and they asked the Forest Service to make sure that this 

kind of gas drilling didn’t happen on the George Washington. 

I believe that the local government and the landowner messages 

from the Valley on horizontal drilling were not intended to be political statements on oil and gas production on public lands elsewhere. They were directed to the George Washington, and they 

ought to be taken at face value. Citizens in the Shenandoah Valley 

have observed the impacts of Marcellus shale gas development in 

other communities and have decided that a cautious approach is 

warranted. 

That concludes my statement, and I welcome questions. Again, 

thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wofford follows:] 

Statement of Kate Wofford, Executive Director, 

Shenandoah Valley Network 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. It is an honor to be here this morning. 

My name is Kate Giese Wofford and I serve as executive director of the Shenandoah Valley Network of citizens groups in the Valley’s six northern counties. I 

work with residents and their elected officials to preserve rural lands and communities, and to strengthen the Valley’s rural economy. The Network is a non-profit 

group and I am the only staff member. 

I am here today to provide the Valley’s unique perspective on natural gas drilling; 

particularly the strong support among elected officials and area residents in Rockingham, Shenandoah and Augusta Counties and the cities of Harrisonburg and 

Staunton for a ban on horizontal drilling in the George Washington National Forest. 

I’d like to cover several points: 

• The northern Shenandoah Valley is conservative, cautious and, at times, 

skeptical. I find that residents and local elected officials take their time and 

do their homework before they come to a decision or embrace anything new. 

• The George Washington National Forest represents 29 percent of all the land 

in Augusta County and 24 percent in Rockingham and Shenandoah County 

and provides public drinking water to 260,000 residents in and around the 

Shenandoah Valley. Therefore the Forest Management Plan will have a major 

impact on local land use and water supplies for at least 15 years. 

• Since 2007, long before natural gas drilling emerged as a possibility, the Valley’s elected officials and residents started asking forest planners to formally 

identify and protect the public drinking water sources on the George Washington National Forest. In total, 40 local governments and civic organizations 

adopted formal resolutions urging the Forest Service to specifically manage 

public drinking water quality and supply. Supervisors in seven Shenandoah 

Valley counties and council members in four town and two cities, representing 

over 340,000 citizens, submitted such resolutions. These requests were heard, 

and drinking water resource identification and some new protections are included in the draft forest plan. 

• The northern Shenandoah Valley has not sought to embrace and has no history of intensive energy development on its rural lands. In fact, local governments have long-supported rural economic development based on productive 

working farm and forest lands and robust tourism and recreation sectors. 

• Last fall, elected officials in the three northern Shenandoah Valley counties 

and on the two city councils specifically asked the U.S. Forest Service to ban 

or place a moratorium on horizontal natural gas drilling to protect both public 

drinking water and/or rural lands. This spring, Rockingham County Farm Bureau adopted a resolution supporting natural gas development, but opposing 

high volume hydraulic fracturing until its impacts on agriculture are well unVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
58 

derstood. Many local citizens groups and conservation organizations have expressed similar concerns. • The draft George Washington National Forest Management Plan, with the 

ban on horizontal natural gas drilling, reflects both the careful analysis conducted by the forest and the policies and priorities of local governments and 

residents in these counties. It is not a precedent for other parts of our nation. 

The Shenandoah Valley has a strong base of traditional rural businesses like 

farming, timber, tourism and recreation. Small-scale natural gas production has 

been minimal, with conventional vertical wells that had little impact on local farms 

or forests. 

Therefore, in 2010, when the Valley was faced with its first proposal for a 

Marcellus Shale natural gas well, the local officials took a thoughtful and cautious 

approach. Rockingham County officials drove five hours each way to visit Wetzel 

County, WVA where this type of gas drilling is in full swing. They took along one 

of the citizen leaders I work with, Kim Sandum. 

In Wetzel County, they saw farm land bulldozed for wastewater holding ponds 

and drilling pads, narrow rural roads chewed up by heavy truck traffic, extensive 

pipeline development on farm and forest land, compressors that run all night and 

mountain streams sucked dry to provide millions of gallons of water used for 

drilling. 

Rockingham officials talked to landowners and emergency response crews. Not 

one person on the trip came back from to Rockingham County and said ‘‘This is an 

industry we’d like to develop in the Shenandoah Valley.’’ Later, when the possibility 

for shale gas drilling on public lands came up, local officials remained skeptical. 

I’ve brought with me the letters sent to the U.S. Forest Service last fall, requesting a moratorium or ban on horizontal drilling by the three counties and two cities. 

To quote from a Sept, 16, 2010 letter from the county: 

‘‘Rockingham County is supportive of the development of alternative energy 

resources located at a site that is appropriate for its use, with appropriate 

levels of regulation and oversight, and on private lands. The Board does not 

support the commercialization of natural resources in the National Forest 

or National Park lands, other than the limited timber sales program, 

through mining, extraction and other industrial means.’’ 

As I said earlier, the Valley’s local governments and private sector have been investing for generations in traditional rural land uses based on its extraordinary natural, historic and cultural resources: farming, forestry, tourism and recreation. They 

have no history of, or strategy for, economic development based on heavy energy development on rural lands. 

In fact, local governments and the farm community have concerns that horizontal 

drilling is incompatible with the investments made in our region’s traditional rural 

sectors and could actually do more harm than good. The Rockingham County Farm 

Bureau adopted a resolution in the spring supporting natural gas development, but 

opposing high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Our tourism folks are looking to fill local 

restaurants and hotels with visitors enjoying the national forest, Shenandoah National Park and our world-famous rivers and Civil War battlefields. 

Thankfully, the Forest planners carefully studied the issue and responded with 

a proposal that respects local concerns—a prohibition on horizontal drilling on federal lands oil and gas leases. This restriction is viewed in the Valley as a middleof-the-road proposal. 

It does not impact the potential for vertical gas drilling on almost 1 million acres 

of the Forest, nor does it affect the potential for natural gas drilling on private lands 

or privately held mineral rights on the forest. And the ban would not be permanent. 

It’s part of a 10–15 year management plan. Forest planners have made it very clear 

that if gas drilling on private land demonstrates that our local natural gas resource 

is developable and can be done without impact to water quality, the Forest would 

reconsider the issue. 

We have a landowner at the hearing this morning, Mr. Everett May, Jr. from 

Rockingham County, whose family has farmed land next to the George Washington 

National Forest in Virginia and West Virginia for several generations. Mr. May 

signed a lease for Marcellus shale gas drilling in 2006, thinking it would be a simple 

vertical well. Then he learned about impacts of this industry in other communities. 

He told me that he would give that lease back if he could. But he can’t. So he, and 

many of his neighbors, asked the County Supervisors to see that a conservative approach is taken on private lands and asked the Forest Service to make sure that 

this kind of gas drilling didn’t happen on public lands. 

From a personal perspective, I got to know the Shenandoah Valley well when I 

went to college at Washington & Lee University in Lexington. Before returning to 

the Valley three years ago, my family and I lived in Idaho for 5 years. I worked 

59 

with coalitions of landowners, ranchers, and government officials on public lands 

policies. Out west, I saw first hand the frustration among local people and elected 

officials over public land managers’ lack of responsiveness to the priorities of local 

communities. 

In this plan from the George Washington National Forest, the Forest Service listened and, in large part, followed the requests of nearby localities. There are new 

provisions to identify and monitor source areas for public water supply, a high priority for Valley communities and a topic that was not addressed in the 1993 Plan. 

And, of course, the ban on horizontal drilling is also consistent with citizen concerns 

about a new industry. 

I believe that the local governments and landowner messages from the Valley on 

horizontal drilling were not intended to be political statements on oil and gas production on public lands elsewhere. They were directed to the George Washington 

National Forest and ought to be taken at face value. Citizens in the Shenandoah 

Valley have observed the impacts of Marcellus shale gas development in other communities and have decided that a cautious approach is warranted. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide a perspective from the Shenandoah Valley. 

Attachments for the record, submitted by email: 

Rockingham County letter to Ms. Hyzer 

Augusta County letter to Ms. Hyzer 

Shenandoah County resolution 

City of Harrisonburg letter to Ms. Hyzer 

City of Staunton resolution 

Rockingham County Farm Bureau resolution 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Mall? 

STATEMENT OF AMY MALL, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Ms. MALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. I am Amy Mall, a Senior Policy Analyst with the Natural 

Resources Defense Council or NRDC. 

NRDC is not opposed to natural gas as a fuel. Natural gas is 

cleaner burning than other fossil fuels and can help in a transitional role as our nation shifts to a cleaner energy future. But the 

nation’s use of natural gas must be efficient, and natural gas must 

be produced by methods that best protect clean water, clean air, 

land, the climate, human health and sensitive ecosystems. 

Cases of contaminated water, unhealthy air pollution and 

scarred landscapes are too common in the rush to develop natural 

gas. Some say this industry is mature and has sufficient safety and 

environmental standards in place, but today’s oil and gas well is 

not your grandfather’s oil and gas well. Wells are deeper, drilling 

is more intensive and there are growing concerns about impacts to 

wildlife, human health, communities and public lands. 

The George Washington National Forest is an extremely popular 

location for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other outdoor 

pursuits and, as was mentioned earlier, it is home to the headwaters of the Potomac River, which help supply drinking water 

here in Washington, D.C. It appears that the U.S. Forest Service 

has correctly taken a precautionary approach in assessing the potential impacts from natural gas production on water and other 

natural resources in the George Washington National Forest before 

moving forward to approve any new drilling. 

60 

While there is growing understanding of the environmental impacts of oil and gas development, much remains unknown. There 

has been little scientific investigation into the wide range of potential environmental impacts from this very complex industry. Federal agencies therefore have begun conducting their own inquiries 

into various aspects of oil and natural gas operations. 

For example, Forest Service research in West Virginia found that 

forests suffer permanent changes from drilling operations, including ineffective erosion controls and toxic waste disposal methods 

that kill vegetation. The researchers found that unexpected impacts could not be carefully controlled, planned for or mitigated. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has found that the knowledge of how horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing might affect water resources has not kept pace with the expanded use of 

these technologies. The USGS stated that, and this is a quote, 

‘‘Agencies that manage and protect water resources could benefit 

from a better understanding of the impacts that drilling and stimulating Marcellus shale wells might have on water supplies.’’ 

Clearly many uncertainties remain, but drilling on Federal lands 

continues to proceed apace across the country. The Bureau of Land 

Management has been approving permits, and there are more than 

38 million acres of land onshore leased for oil and gas by the BLM. 

While some places may be appropriately protected, this is a small 

minority of parcels. 

We are concerned that current regulations, as well as enforcement capabilities, are insufficient. Federal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean 

Water Act, have gaping loopholes for the oil and gas industry that 

need to be closed. For example, the Clean Water Act definition of 

pollutant excludes hydraulic fracturing fluids under certain circumstances, and hydraulic fracturing is also exempt from the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. 

While the Department of the Interior has announced some new 

procedures to improve review of parcels proposed for leasing, something that we strongly support, the agency has not put the strong 

rules we need into place to require new practices that best minimize environmental impacts. 

Drilling on Federal lands must also abide by state rules, but 

state rules are also woefully inadequate in most locations. For example, the West Virginia Secretary of Environmental Protection recently said that the state’s regulations for Marcellus gas wells is 

‘‘inadequate’’ and that the agency hasn’t fully considered drilling’s 

aggregate effects on water, air, roads, public health and safety. 

This is not a partisan issue. A Republican candidate for Governor 

in West Virginia recently stated that West Virginia needs new regulations to protect communities, state roads and the environment, 

and it is clear from blowouts during frac jobs in Pennsylvania recently—there have been several in the last I think two years—that 

the industry does not always use the safest practices. 

States and Federal agencies are also not staffed to fully enforce 

the current laws on the books. Virginia had less than 10 enforcement staff in 2008 for 6,000 wells. West Virginia, the most recent 

report was that there are 12 inspectors for 59,000 wells. The GAO 

reported earlier this year that the Department of the Interior conVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
61 

tinues to experience problems in hiring, training and retaining sufficient staff to provide oversight and management of oil and gas operations on Federal lands and waters. 

In conclusion, it is clear to us that we need more science and research, stronger rules and better enforcement to protect the public 

health and our natural resources from the risks of natural gas development. We urge the committees to work with others in Congress and make sufficient funds available to Federal agencies to ensure they have the resources they need for these essential activities. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mall follows:] 

Statement of Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Chairmen and Members of the Committees, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. I am Amy Mall, a Senior Policy Analyst with the Natural Resources Defense 

Council, or NRDC. NRDC is a non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers, and environmental specialists founded in 1970 and dedicated to protecting public health 

and the environment, supported by more than 1.2 million members and on-line activists. 

I want to state up front that NRDC is not opposed to natural gas. Natural gas 

is cleaner burning than other fossil fuels and can help in a transitional role as our 

nation shills to a cleaner energy future. But the nation’s use of natural gas must 

be efficient, and natural gas must be produced by methods that best protect clean 

water, clean air, land, the climate, human health and sensitive ecosystems. More 

needs to be done in order to approve oil and gas exploration and production. Cases 

of contaminated water sources, unhealthy air pollution and scarred landscapes are 

too common in the rush to develop natural gas resources. 

Oil and natural gas exploration and production have been going on in the United 

States for almost 200 years. Some say that this history means the industry is mature and has sufficient safety and environmental standards in place. But today’s oil 

and gas industry is not your grandfather’s oil and gas industry. Wells are deeper, 

drilling is more intensive, hydraulic fracturing introduces more pressure into wells, 

a lot more resources are used such as water and chemicals, enormous amounts of 

toxic waste are generated and must be managed, extensive heavy industrial machinery and equipment generates noise and toxic air pollutants, and there are growing 

concerns about impacts to wildlife, human health, communities and public lands. 

As a resident of Washington, D.C., I have visited the George Washington National 

Forest many times. So have millions of other people, including many from urban 

areas seeking fresh air and nature; the national forest hosts more than one million 

people per year, with more than 9 million people living within 75 miles. It is an 

extremely popular location for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and other outdoor 

pursuits. 

The George Washington National Forest is also home to the headwaters of the 

Potomac and James Rivers, which help supply drinking water for many communities, including Washington, D.C. and Richmond. Virginia. The U.S. Forest Service 

has correctly taken a precautionary approach in assessing potential impacts from 

hydraulic fracturing on water and other natural resources in the George Washington National Forest before moving forward to approve new drilling. The Forest 

Service has also engaged in a very robust public process for the revision of its management plan, with the first public meeting held in 2007 and six scheduled for this 

summer. All parties have had an opportunity for input into this plan. 

While there is growing understanding of the environmental impacts of oil and gas 

development, much remains unknown. There has been very little scientific investigation into the wide range of potential environmental impacts from this very complex industry. That is one reason why at least five federal agencies—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of 

Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Forest Service have begun conducting some of their own inquiries into various aspects of oil and natural gas operations. In addition, the scientific resources of the Health and Human Services Department and others should also be brought to bear on these questions. 

For example, Forest Service research in West Virginia has found that forests suffer permanent changes from drilling operations, including more than 200 trees cut 

down or harmed for only one wellpad, ineffective erosion controls, and toxic waste 

62 

1 Adams. Mary Beth et al.-Effects of development of a natural gas well and associated pipeline 

on the natural and scientific resources of the Fernow Experimental Forest,’’ Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS–76. Newtown Square. PA: U.S. Depannient of Agriculture. Forest Service. Northern Research Station. 2011; and Adams, Mary Beth et a1, ‘‘Effects of natural gas development on forest 

ecosystems’’ Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS–P–78. Newtown Square. PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Forest Service. Northern Research Station. 2010 2Osborn. Stephen G. et al. ‘‘Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well 

drilling and hydraulic fracturing.’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. May 17. 

2011, vol. 108, no. 20. 8172–8176. 3Soeder- Daniel J. and William M. Kappel. ‘‘Water Resources and Natural Gas Production 

from the Marcellus Shale,’’ U.S. Geological Survey. Fact Sheet 2009–3032. May 2009. 4Oil and Gas Lease Utilization—Onshore and Offshore: Report to the President. U.S. Department of the Interior. March. 2011. 5 33USC1362(6)(B) 

6 Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 322 

7 42USC7412(n)(4) 

8 42USC6921(b)(2) 

9 . David. ‘‘DEP: System ’isn’t prepared’.’’ The Dominion Post, June 3, 2011. 10 Rivard. Ry, ‘‘Republican Bill Maloney urges Marcellus shale regulations.’’ Charleston Daily 

Hail. July 4. 2011. 11ProPublica,’’How Big is the Gas Drilling Regulatory Staff in Your State?’’ Available at: 

http://projects.propublica.org/gas-drilling-regulatory-staffing/ 

disposal methods that killed vegetation. The researchers found that unexpected impacts could not be carefully controlled, planned for, or mitigated.1

Duke University researchers recently documented what they describe as ‘‘systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shalegas 

extraction’’ and called for more data and research.2

The USGS found that the knowledge of how horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing might affect water resources has not kept pace’’ with the expanded use of 

these technologies. The USGS has stated that ‘‘Agencies that manage and protect 

water resources could benefit from a better understanding of the impacts that drilling and stimulating Marcellus Shale wells might have on water supplies, and a 

clearer idea of the options for wastewater disposal.’’ 3

Clearly, many uncertainties remain. Despite these uncertainties, federal agencies 

have for years proposed oil and gas projects that do not fully comply with our environmental laws, and continue to do so. Many courts have overturned agency oil and 

gas approvals because of a lack of compliance; these decisions have led to improved 

projects on the ground, with better protection for valued resources. Drilling on federal lands continued to proceed apace. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 

been approving permits and there are more than 38 million acres of land onshore 

leased for oil and gas by the BLM.4 It has been determined that price, not policy, 

is the biggest determining factor for drilling. 

Not only is there limited scientific knowledge about the impacts of oil and natural 

gas production, but current regulations, as well as enforcement capabilities, are insufficient. Federal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking 

Water Act, and Clean Water Act, have gaping loopholes for the oil and gas industry 

that need to be closed. For example, the Clean Water Act definition of ‘‘pollutant’’ 

excludes hydraulic fracturing fluids under certain circumstances.5 Hydraulic fracturing is also exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act,6 emissions of toxic air pollutants by certain oil and gas operations are exempt from National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,7 and toxic oil and gas waste is exempt from federal hazardous waste provisions.8

While the Department of the Interior has announced new procedures to improve 

review of parcels proposed for leasing, something that NRDC strongly supports, the 

agency has not put strong rules in place to require new practices to best minimize 

environmental impacts. State rules are also woefully inadequate. For example, the 

Secretary of West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was recently quoted in a news article as stating that ‘‘....the DEP regulatory process for 

Marcellus gas wells is inadequate.’’ He also stated that West Virginia’s regulatory 

structure ‘‘isn’t prepared’’ and that the DEP hasn’t fully considered drilling’s aggregate effects on water, air, roads, public health and safety.9

This fact is not a partisan issue. A Republican candidate for Governor in West 

Virginia was recently quoted as stating that West Virginia needs new regulations 

to protect communities, state roads and the environment.10 Virginia has not seen 

any significant updating of its rules in more than a decade. Inadequate state rules 

are a concern in other states across the country. 

States and federal agencies are also not staffed to fully enforce current laws on 

the books. It has been reported that Virginia had less than 10 enforcement staff in 

2008 to oversee approximately 6,000 wells,11 and that West Virginia has only 12 inVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
63 

12 Junkins. Casey. ‘‘Drilling Fees Would Increase.’ The Intelligencer/Wheeling.News Register. 

February 1, 2011. 13 U.S. Government Accountabilty Office, ‘‘High-Risk Series: An Update.’’ February. 2011. 

GAO–11–278. 

spectors for 59,000 wells.12 And in February of this year, the GAO reported the Department of the Interior (DOI) ‘‘continues to experience problems in hiring, training, 

and retaining sufficient staff to provide oversight and management of oil and gas 

operations on federal lands and waters.’’ 13

In conclusion, we need more science and research, stronger rules, and better enforcement to protect the public’s health and our natural resources from the risks of 

oil and natural gas development. We urge the Committees to work with others in 

Congress and make sufficient funds available federal agencies to ensure they have 

the resources needed for these essential activities. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

Now we will have questions from the Members of the committee. 

Members are limited to five minutes for their questions. I now recognize myself for five minutes. 

Ms. Wofford, you talked about wanting a ban on horizontal drilling, and I am sure you understand that when you drill down and 

then go laterally with horizontal drilling you can go great distances. In fact, I think recently a record was set of nine miles from 

the vertical well itself. But you can go at least thousands of feet, 

sometimes miles. 

So you can have a single pad with multiple wells on it, as opposed to 10 or 20 or more vertical wells scattered throughout the 

surrounding countryside. Wouldn’t you prefer one pad, as opposed 

to 10 or 20? 

Ms. WOFFORD. Thanks for the question. I would say from the 

perspective of communities in the Shenandoah Valley the concern 

isn’t necessarily just the single footprint of a well pad. The concern 

really is the whole process that is associated with shale gas drilling, starting from the exploration all the way through to the wastewater treatment. 

I mentioned the field trip that officials took to Wetzel County, 

Pennsylvania. Some of the impacts that they saw there go well beyond the footprint of a well pad. It is the impact on the landscape 

from well pads and compressor stations, but also the pipeline infrastructure, the heavy truck traffic carting chemicals and sand and 

cement in and out of sites. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. But your objection is to the horizontal process? 

Ms. WOFFORD. I think the concern in the Shenandoah Valley, sir, 

is really toward the entire process of shale gas drilling. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. All right. Thank you for your honesty. 

Ms. Matsen, I would like to ask you a question or two. You say 

that Virginia is interested in becoming the energy capital of the 

East Coast, and job creation here in Congress is a huge concern of 

ours, especially given the abysmal and discouraging job report that 

we heard this morning. 

If the proposed horizontal ban on Forest Service lands was finalized, what would that do to future energy jobs in the Commonwealth of Virginia? 

Ms. MATSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. We 

don’t have precise numbers, of course. It is speculative to know 

what would happen. 

64 

But I think we can look at the more than 3,000 jobs that the industry is supporting in Southwest Virginia today and understand 

that the area being produced in Southwest Virginia is about the 

same size as the area in which production would be banned in the 

forest and perhaps extrapolate from those facts that we are looking 

at the missed opportunity, shall we say, for thousands of additional 

jobs in Virginia. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. And could you respond to a statement made by one of the other witnesses that the states playing 

a role in regulation have a poor record in most cases according to 

one of the witnesses? 

I am not sure I agree with that. Could you respond to that in 

the case of the Virginia perspective? 

Ms. MATSEN. Absolutely, sir. I certainly can’t agree with that. We 

have, as I said in my remarks, no experience with water quality 

degradation in Virginia through decades of hydrofracturing and 

even the, perhaps, single decade of the high volume 

hydrofracturing in Southwest Virginia. Not a single experience. 

Now, not to jinx our luck, and I can certainly turn to my expert 

to my right, but we are diligent. There has been a lot of discussion 

today about being cautious and being conservative and being diligent. Virginia and its regulators are all of those things, and we 

have a comprehensive regulatory scheme that goes from site examination to casing plans all the way to reclamation to make sure 

that the interests and resources of Virginia and Virginians are well 

protected. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller, I will conclude with you. Interestingly, and I have a 

quote here from the Director of Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Mr. Ralph Cavanaugh, ‘‘If the industry could meet high standards 

of environmental performance for extracting and delivering the 

fuel, we are looking here at very good news for America’s economy 

and industrial competitiveness, the environment and our nation’s 

energy security.’’ 

Can the industry meet those high standards that will lead to the 

good news that Mr. Cavanaugh says in his quote? 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much for the question. We certainly 

believe we can. We have a long history of developing these industry 

standards and best practices. They are widely used throughout the 

country. They are widely cited not only in the state regulations, but 

also in the Federal regulations many times over. 

And we have a large community of experts that develop these 

documents, as I mentioned in my testimony. So we feel that this 

strong foundation of technical work provides the blueprint that we 

are all looking for. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you very much. My time is up. I will 

yield to the Ranking Member for five minutes. 

Mr. HOLT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Matsen, what is the largest industry in the Commonwealth 

of Virginia? 

Ms. MATSEN. Agriculture, sir. 

Mr. HOLT. Yes. As I understand it, about 350,000 jobs in the 

Commonwealth? 

Ms. MATSEN. Yes, sir. 

65 

Mr. HOLT. Do you know the top five agricultural counties in the 

state? 

Ms. MATSEN. They are right there in the Valley. Yes, sir. Of 

course. 

Mr. HOLT. Yes. Three of the top five have actually commented on 

this subject. Let me mention a few things that I have here. 

The County of Shenandoah, if I may quote here, in the revised 

management plan the Board of Supervisors asks that the Forest 

Service act to aggressively protect drinking water resources by prohibiting hydraulic fracturing natural gas wells. Do you disagree 

with the elected officials of Shenandoah County? 

Ms. MATSEN. I certainly do not disagree with their caution. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. 

Ms. MATSEN. It is understandable that they would want to proceed carefully. However, I am not aware—— 

Mr. HOLT. Rockingham County. 

Ms. MATSEN.—of any threat to their drinking water from this 

practice. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. Rockingham County has also commented similarly, does not support these activities. Do you disagree with Rockingham County, the leaders? 

Ms. MATSEN. Well, we do, sir. 

Mr. HOLT. You do? 

Ms. MATSEN. As I say, we agree with their desire to proceed with 

caution. This is an unfamiliar practice to the folks in the county. 

It has been going on in Southwest Virginia for a long time, though 

not in the northern part of the state. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. 

Ms. MATSEN. We look forward to engaging with our public officials in—— 

Mr. HOLT. Thanks. Now, Augusta County Board of Supervisors 

‘‘does not support hydrofracking’’ as has been proposed. Do you disagree with the elected officials of the County of Augusta? 

Ms. MATSEN. We do support hydrofracking in the forest. 

Mr. HOLT. You do. And the City of Harrisonburg, Virginia? You 

disagree with the Council there when they say the Forest Service 

should act aggressively to protect drinking water by—— 

Ms. MATSEN. Again, we are not aware that this will pose any 

risk. 

Mr. HOLT. And you support or do not support the declaration of 

the Town of Staunton I believe this is—yes, the Staunton City 

Council—asking the Forest Service to act aggressively to protect 

the drinking water by prohibiting the horizontal hydraulic fracturing? 

Ms. MATSEN. If acting aggressively means a ban, sir, we would 

not support. 

Mr. HOLT. I see. All right. Thank you. Now, these are not what 

you would call politically liberal bastions. We are not talking about 

Berkeley, California, or Cambridge, Massachusetts, are we here? 

Ms. MATSEN. No, sir. 

Mr. HOLT. No? OK. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Mall, you mentioned that the USGS found that knowledge 

of how horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing might affect 

water supplies has not kept pace with the expanded use. 

66 

You go on further to say that the problems in hiring, training, 

retaining sufficient staff to provide oversight and management 

exist and that we need more understanding and better enforcement 

in the area. So it sounds like you see some lack of knowledge on 

how to proceed. 

Given that, do you think the Forest Service should move ahead 

with the horizontal drilling/hydraulic fracturing in the absence of 

this understanding and in the absence of this kind of enforcement? 

Ms. MALL. Yes. Absolutely. We think a lot more science and research is needed. That is why we support the EPA’s investigation 

into the potential risks of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. 

Also, the Department of Energy is looking into this and, as we 

heard earlier, the—— 

Mr. HOLT. But the question is do you think they should allow 

these technologies to proceed in the absence of this knowledge? 

Ms. MALL. We think there are places that absolutely should be 

off limits because the risk is too great and the unknowns are great, 

and that would include drinking watersheds for significant populations like the headwaters of the Potomac River. 

It sounds like the Forest Service—I have not read the complete 

draft environmental impact statement. As was stated earlier, these 

are place-based and they are specific to location, but the discussion 

of the fractures and the faults underground, the drinking water 

sources that are there and the other important values in the forest, 

it sounds like they are on the right track. 

Mr. HOLT. Thanks very much. My time has expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. You are welcome. We will now take one of the 

Members of the committee out of order because he has a funeral 

to get to. Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia is next. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

forbearance. One of my constituents from the Shenandoah Valley 

who gave his life in Afghanistan is being buried at Arlington National Cemetery later this afternoon and I do want to be there, so 

I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses before I depart. 

Let me start with Ms. Matsen. I have heard from these counties 

as well, expressing their concern about what takes place in the 

National Forest. It is my understanding that not to the same degree that we have in the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania where 97 percent of the mineral rights are owned by private 

individuals and only 3 percent by the Forest, so the forest land is 

owned by the government, but the subsurface rights are primarily 

not owned there. 

But in the George Washington National Forest it is my understanding from the National Forest that 16 percent of the land or 

about 180,000 acres are owned by private entities in terms of the 

subsurface mineral rights. So if one were to proceed in those portions of the National Forest, that land would be subject to your regulation, would it not, and not to the Forest Service’s regulation? 

Ms. MATSEN. I will look to my expert to confirm, sir, but as far 

as my understanding is that that would be true. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. OK. So you would impose the state’s requirements. And I share your concern and I share the concern of the 

67 

local governments that good standards be imposed before any kind 

of drilling takes place. We haven’t seen this in the Shenandoah 

Valley. We have in other parts of Virginia. 

And I suspect that is in part because there is a lot of uncertainty 

about whether there is an economically viable deposit in the area, 

but if there were determined to be one for that 180,000 acres this 

process that we are talking about here where they are banning it 

would not apply to those acres. 

So the question I have for you is do you think that it would make 

good sense for the Forest Service to work on good technology and 

procedures that would be applied on their portion of the land and 

to work with the state and to the extent the Federal Government 

has input here on making sure that good practices are imposed because they can’t stop it on those 180,000 acres anyway? 

Ms. MATSEN. Yes, sir. I absolutely agree that there is a path 

short of a ban that allows us to develop those resources carefully 

and cautiously that would protect the interests in the forest. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And I share the concern of those local governments with regard to the quality of their drinking water and making sure that any chemicals used in the hydrofracking process 

wouldn’t be allowed to get into the drinking water systems of those 

governments. 

But they have jurisdiction over the remaining private land in 

their area with regard to certain zoning regulations and so on that 

they can impose. Have you heard from any of those jurisdictions 

that they have banned horizontal drilling or attempted to ban it in 

their jurisdiction on those private lands? 

Ms. MATSEN. No, sir, I have not. They have declined to act on 

some interest that has been expressed, but in terms of adopting a 

ban going forward, no, sir. I have not. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So they have taken a case-by-case approach? 

They want to be cautious. I know that, for example, there was one 

application in a floodplain, and obviously that would generate some 

concern with regard to how those chemicals might get into drinking 

water if you had a flood or some other event like that. 

But they have not taken the position that there would be no 

county-wide ban on horizontal drilling on private lands. Their focus 

has been imposing this ban strictly on Federal lands. As we have 

just pointed out, it wouldn’t be an entire ban anyway because there 

would be land where the subsurface mineral rights are still retained by private landowners. 

So again, my question to you is given the desire on the part of 

some, including myself, to make sure that we are using the newest 

and best technology and that we are making sure that there is not 

degradation of the land or the water resources of the counties that 

I represent, would it not make more sense to have a progressive 

approach to looking to using those newest technologies, as opposed 

to a 15 year ban which would not be 100 percent effective to begin 

with, but also would not allow for the same kind of considerations 

that they are making on private lands in the rest of the county on 

these public lands in the National Forest? 

Ms. MATSEN. Yes, sir. Absolutely. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Those are the only questions I have, 

Mr. Chairman. 

68 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. We will now revert to the regular 

order of Members of the committee. Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. One of the witnesses 

noted that this isn’t your grandfather’s oil and gas industry. I 

couldn’t agree more. 

In my congressional district I have Drake Well, 1859, and I have 

been there. In fact, my district office is I won’t say it is within a 

walk, but it is within a hike of that. Frankly, I have been on a lot 

of Marcellus well sites as well. How many of the panels have been 

to a Marcellus well site? 

[A show of hands.] 

Mr. THOMPSON. Great. I encourage those of you who haven’t to 

do that. If you don’t get that far just walk to 124 Cannon. We will 

show you a picture of the Drake Well and a 2010 Pennsylvania 

General Energy Well as well there. It is different. The science, the 

technology, the standards, the oversight by the states. It is absolutely different. 

I want to just share in terms of the EPA, Administrator Lisa 

Jackson stated that there is no evidence that suggests the process 

of hydrofracking contaminates water. Just some assurance. My 

friend from Maryland is not here. He didn’t allude. He specifically 

said that I guess those of us in Pennsylvania are contaminating the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

I want to be very clear about that. The blowout that he was talking about is specifically the environmental testing after the incident found that there was ‘‘limited and very localized environmental impact with no adverse effects on aquatic life in Towanda 

Creek.’’ So I assure you if there is no adverse impact on Towanda 

Creek, there is nothing in the Susquehanna River and nothing 

hundreds of miles away in the Chesapeake Bay as a result of that. 

The previous panel mentioned a lot about the importance of public input from the Forest Service, and I can’t agree with that more. 

Mr. Mayer, public input within the communities of the National 

Forest obviously is important. What has been your experience living and working within the Allegheny National Forest, the ability 

to provide input and how they receive or use that input? 

Mr. MAYER. With respect to oil and gas development, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. MAYER. Well, at this point in time, because of the litigation 

and the injunction, the officers on the Allegheny National Forest 

are really not inclined to engage in dialogues. They simply participate in the course of the individual notifications that come from the 

companies in order to work through the consultation process, which 

has been the practice for the last 85 years and has been so done 

successfully. 

So on a broad scheme in terms of talking like on a program 

basis, for example, with the Oil and Gas Association there really 

isn’t engagement, but on the individual level with regard to a particular project there is, and it is typically very constructive because 

you are working usually with professional gas and oil administrators from the Forest Service at that level. 

69 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is my understanding that the production of 

shale gas is subject to eight Federal laws and 11 state laws. Mr. 

Mayer, is that true from your perspective? 

Mr. MAYER. I couldn’t begin to count the numbers of laws, the 

numbers of agencies and people with oversight frankly, Mr. Chairman, but I would feel confident that eight is certainly a confident 

number to rely on. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thanks. Mr. Fuller, what, in your opinion, would 

be the net effect on our domestic energy supply if a ban on horizontal drilling were carried out across the National Forest System? 

Mr. FULLER. Well, it is difficult to know without knowing exactly 

the extent of resources in the National Forest System, but in those 

places where shale gas or shale oil underlies National Forest lands 

essentially the economics of developing those types of resources 

hinges on the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. 

That technology has evolved particularly over the past five to 

seven years to allow us to now have the prolific development we 

have in the Marcellus shale and other shales around the country, 

so to suggest that limiting access to vertical wells would allow for 

the same type of development I think is inconsistent with the reality that it takes the combination of the two to really develop 

these new and very extensive shale formations. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Mr. Fleming of Louisiana? 

Mr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Wofford, you are here today. I get a sense that you are 

speaking for the people of Shenandoah Valley. Do you speak for 

them here today? 

Ms. WOFFORD. No, sir. I think I am here to provide a perspective 

that I have observed from the Valley. 

Mr. FLEMING. OK. So really you are speaking for yourself? 

Ms. WOFFORD. Yes, and I feel confident speaking for the Shenandoah Valley Network and our member organizations that work 

in the local—— 

Mr. FLEMING. OK. But you haven’t brought any surveys or data? 

There have been no votes on the issue? 

Ms. WOFFORD. I have brought with me five resolutions from local 

government—— 

Mr. FLEMING. No, no. I am talking—— 

Ms. WOFFORD.—and a resolution from the Farm Bureau. 

Mr. FLEMING. I am not talking about governments or government 

officials. I am talking about the people. I assume hundreds, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people. There has been no 

survey. 

Ms. WOFFORD. Sir, I am comfortable—I am sorry. Go ahead. 

Mr. FLEMING. Has there been any survey? I mean, I would love 

to have that data if you have it here today. 

Ms. WOFFORD. I am confident that the elected officials in the 

communities—— 

Mr. FLEMING. No. I don’t want to hear what you are confident 

about. I want to know the data. Do you have any data? Yes or no? 

Ms. WOFFORD. No, sir. 

Mr. FLEMING. OK. 

Ms. WOFFORD. No survey has been done. 

70 

Mr. FLEMING. You have no data. 

OK. Ms. Mall? I can’t see your name completely from here so I 

apologize. Now, you indicate that there is inadequate data on safety. Now again, we have established that this is a technology that 

has been going on 60 years. It does come under the EPA. EPA in 

2004 said it is perfectly safe. 

Again, I have asked the question before. I have asked it many 

times in this committee room. Not one, single person has been injured or killed from hydrofracking or horizontal drilling that I am 

aware of and nobody else, so it would seem to me that the burden 

is on you to tell us what is the technology where—I am sorry. 

Where is the science that it is damaging the environment or is 

damaging or hurting people? Do you have that data here today? 

Ms. MALL. Congressman, I do want to mention one case in Ohio 

where the state—— 

Mr. FLEMING. Excuse me. I want to get plenty of questions in. 

I don’t want anecdotal information. 

Ms. MALL. No. This is a state investigation that found groundwater was contaminated due to three contributing factors, one of 

which was a frac job which, what they called, went out of zone. 

There are other cases around the country where the state regulators have clearly found that oil and gas operations contaminated 

groundwater. We feel that they never asked the right questions to 

answer whether or not fracking was a contributing factor in those 

other cases. 

Mr. FLEMING. OK. Have you brought the science on that, the 

study, the engineers evaluating? I mean, obviously for instance 

there is this video that is going around, or I guess it is a quasidocumentary about natural gas seeping into water supplies. We 

find out when you actually apply science to it that that is something that happens naturally in nature. 

Ms. MALL. It does happen naturally in some cases, but state 

agencies have found that some methane in groundwater was 

caused by oil and gas operations—— 

Mr. FLEMING. OK. I would love to have—— 

Ms. MALL.—in Colorado and in Pennsylvania. 

Mr. FLEMING. Let me throw this to the rest of the panel. Can 

anyone here answer that? My understanding is there is not a single proven case. I would love to hear your response. 

Mr. FULLER. It depends on whether you are talking about fracturing or you are talking about methane. Fracturing there have 

been no cases indicating that the fracturing process has caused a 

problem with contamination to drinking water or groundwater. 

Mr. FLEMING. Yes. 

Mr. FULLER. Methane contamination is something that can occur 

as a result of the structure of a well. It is an important factor that 

as you are casing and cementing the well in place and as you are 

drilling through formations that you have to isolate those zones. 

That is not a static process. Wells have to be maintained. Wells 

have to be carefully constructed. If there is a flaw in the steel, if 

there is a flaw in the cementing, that allows a pathway to occur 

that can bring methane into groundwater. It is equally certain that 

methane can be there naturally and can come from other types of 

formations. 

71 

So the issue at hand is always trying to determine what is the 

source of the methane. If the source of the methane is from an oil 

and gas operator’s well, he is responsible for fixing it, for stopping 

that from occurring. It does occur. It has been investigated by state 

regulators. They do occasionally find the problem, but in most of 

the cases that have been publicized extensively those have generally been from non oil and gas well sources. 

Put it in this context. We have around a million oil and gas wells 

operating in the country right now. We are drilling about 20,000 

to 35,000 a year. We have a few of these anecdotal cases that show 

up, and they all are investigated by the state regulators and they 

make a determination as to what remedy has to be made to fix 

them. 

Mr. FLEMING. All right. And are you aware, sir, of anyone who 

has been harmed or even fatally harmed as a result of leakage of 

methane? 

Mr. FULLER. I am not aware of anyone that has been harmed by 

the leakage of methane associated with oil and gas operations. 

Now, obviously methane is also natural gas, and natural gas has 

been—— 

Mr. FLEMING. Right. I mean, obviously this does happen naturally. You know, we talk about oil spills in oceans, but the truth 

of that matter is that most of the oil that is in the ocean seeps 

through the ocean floor naturally so we have to keep all of that in 

context. 

And the last thing. Ms. Matsen, you indicate that wells are regulated on a state level. In my state, at least in North Louisiana we 

have 12 full-time regulators from DEQ who are monitoring what is 

going on in all these wells. So is it correct to say that this is an 

unregulated industry? 

Ms. MATSEN. No, sir, it is not. 

Mr. FLEMING. OK. 

Ms. MATSEN. And in fact, I would say that Louisiana does a wonderful job of regulating their industry. I have had the opportunity 

to meet with and talk with your Secretary of Natural Resources, 

and we think very similarly about the balance and the important 

balance between protecting our environment, our economy and our 

energy resources. 

Mr. FLEMING. And you are subject to Federal laws in your 

state—— 

Ms. MATSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FLEMING.—as all our states? 

Ms. MATSEN. Just like you are. 

Mr. FLEMING. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I am done. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. I recognize the gentleman from California for 

up to five minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know we are 

on the second panel and a lot of the questions have been asked. 

I think it is appropriate that the two committees do spend some 

time, especially in light of the fact that I think we are going to utilize more and more natural gas as a cleaner source of energy and 

clearly with the abundance of the Marcellus shale and the reserves 

that now seem to be proven to be over 100 years will provide a lot 

72 

of benefit to this country, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure 

that we do it as safely as we can. 

As some of you know, I represent a significant portion of Kern 

County, and if it were ranked as a state in the Nation—people 

don’t often think about this from California—it would be the fourth 

largest producing oil production in the nation. 

As a matter of fact, I know a lot of my colleagues have various 

views on offshore drilling, but we have 25 platforms offshore, and 

we have a lot of spent drilling in California. And California, with 

38 million people, produces 47 percent of its own oil needs. That 

gets overlooked. If we didn’t do that, we would be obviously in a 

much more difficult situation. We also have 20 percent of our 

energy as renewable, and we are trying to by the year 2020 strive 

to 30 percent as renewable energy, so we are trying to balance our 

portfolio. 

It is my understanding that the Bureau of Land Management 

earlier today and the Forest Service testified that they have no intention of banning horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing on 

Federal lands. Is that clear, Mr. Chairman? I guess I will ask that 

question through you since that was on the previous panel. 

Mr. Chairman? I am asking a question through the Chair since 

I missed the first panel. I understand that BLM testified and the 

Forest Service that they have no intention on banning horizontal 

drilling or hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands. Was that testified 

today? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, Mr. Abbey indicated that, but nevertheless 

we have this preferred alternative sitting there right now in the 

George Washington Forest where that exact—— 

Mr. COSTA. No. This Administration, like every previous Administration, I think sometimes finds itself in contradictory sort of positions. I have been made aware of the Washington situation and 

the proposals there. 

But I think as a policy we are going to have to continue slant 

drilling and fracturization if we are going to take advantage of 

these energy sources and use all the energy tools in our energy 

toolbox as the bipartisan legislation that Congressman Murphy and 

I and others have introduced. 

I think that while you from time to time have problems with 

wells, that is why we have regulations. That is why we need to always be scrutinizing this process to ensure that we can convince 

the public that we do this as safely as we possibly can. That is a 

responsibility that I think government has at the Federal and state 

level, as well as the energy companies have to ensure that they are 

using state-of-the-art, best management practices. 

Mr. Fuller, would you say that is the case today? 

Mr. FULLER. I think the industry—a combination of things. One, 

the industry’s regulatory structure that it operates in imposes a 

substantial set of requirements to assure that the protection of environment and public health are undertaken in the course of developing processes. 

Mr. COSTA. As it should be. 

Mr. FULLER. As it should be. Absolutely. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. And it has been longstanding. And we are 

doing this in the shadow of the massive spill in the Gulf—— 

73 

Mr. FULLER. Right. 

Mr. COSTA.—in which there is a lot of skepticism. 

Mr. FULLER. There is skepticism. There is always going to be 

some skepticism. There are always going to be questions about any 

regulatory system, but it is a system that has arisen over multiple 

decades, long before there was hydraulic fracturing, long before 

there was—— 

Mr. COSTA. Right. 

Mr. FULLER.—horizontal drilling, that has put in place a series 

of particular protections that are imposed on each driller. In addition to that—— 

Mr. COSTA. My time is running out though, so—— 

Mr. FULLER. In addition to that you have efforts like the ones 

that have been undertaken by the American Petroleum Institute 

for nine decades I think said that create technical guidance documents and industry standards that the industry also tries to adhere to. 

Mr. COSTA. And we need to continue to update those to ensure 

that they are the best that they can possibly be in the world. 

Mr. FULLER. Absolutely. In fact, the API has just done five of 

them, updated five of them. 

Mr. COSTA. One quick question. I don’t know if the Chair will 

allow me the time because mine has expired. 

I don’t know if it was stated in earlier testimony, but the potential we have talked about with the discovery of the significance of 

the Marcellus shale and other finds, the potential impacts for natural gas. It is the energy de jour, as I like to say in California these 

days, because we have a lot of air quality problems in closed air 

basins. 

But I am still at a bit of a loss as to why we won’t have greater 

utilization, notwithstanding the resource of natural gas throughout 

the country. Could you try to explain why? 

Mr. FULLER. Well, historically natural gas really grew after 

World War II. 

Mr. COSTA. I understand that. 

Mr. FULLER. And as that growth expanded you did see a huge 

extension of natural gas into residential or commercial operations. 

At that time there were wellhead controls on gas, and it eventually 

suppressed its development. Now, those came off during the 1980s 

principally, and we saw an increase in natural gas. 

At that point in time we were dealing principally with conventional formations, to some degree unconventional formations like 

tight sands and coal bed methane, and as we hit about 2000 we 

started seeing a real challenge in being able to grow the natural 

gas market, given the kinds of natural depletion rates we were 

having in the conventional formations. 

Along about 2005, we really saw the emergence, the beginning 

emergence of the development of shale gas. So for now the next 

five, six years we have seen the identification of shale gas formations across the country, a wide number of formations. We are seeing the development of those formations. 

I think two things. One, as analysts are looking at those formations they are now projecting that we have about 100 years of potential natural gas supply in this country. 

74 

Mr. COSTA. That is based upon the current use? 

Mr. FULLER. Based on current use, which would also allow increased—— 

Mr. COSTA. So if we doubled the use then we would have a 50 

year? 

Mr. FULLER. We would have a 50 year supply. The second aspect 

of that is I think the using industries—manufacturing, chemicals— 

are now realizing that this is a real source of supply. 

After watching supply being somewhat constrained in early 2000, 

the price going up, you saw the chemical industry in particular and 

other manufacturers being very concerned about the reliability of 

the resource. I think that is changing. We are now starting to see 

chemical companies looking at building new operations in areas 

like West Virginia to take advantage of the natural gases. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You have been 

generous with your time. The witness obviously could be pretty 

good at filibustering if he needed to be. 

Mr. FULLER. I worked in the Senate at one time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. This is not a Senate hearing, so—— 

Mr. COSTA. No, I don’t think so, but he has obviously had some 

practice. 

Mr. FULLER. I did work in the Senate at one time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. As we start to conclude here, the gentleman from 

Colorado? 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my time to Congressman Flores. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Flores? 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Witnesses, thank you for joining us today. I know it is not something you would like to be doing on a Friday afternoon. 

First of all, Ms. Matsen, what is the unemployment rate in Virginia today? 

Ms. MATSEN. Golly. Those new numbers just came in, so if I don’t 

get the new number forgive me, but I know that we are about two 

points under the national average, and I want to say just about 7 

percent unemployment. 

Mr. FLORES. And how about the Shenandoah Valley? Do you 

have those metrics? 

Ms. MATSEN. I am afraid I do not. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Mayer, can you tell me about the process that the Forest 

Service used to develop these seven options, if you know what it 

is? If you don’t, just say you don’t know. 

Mr. MAYER. Well, they are using the forest plan process as their 

planning process—— 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Mr. MAYER.—wherein various options are put forward for purposes of being assessed or evaluated. 

Mr. FLORES. I mean, how were they developed? Did they hold 

hearings or did they go to each community and say tell us what 

you think about drilling in the George Washington National Forest? 

75 

Mr. MAYER. Well, all I can speak to is my familiarity with what 

they did in the Allegheny National Forest in revising the Forest 

Plan there. I would assume it is the very same process. 

And they simply go about seeking public input and conduct a series of public meetings, as well as getting data and so forth and periodically through of course the technology with the Internet are 

able to update and keep people informed of what is going on in 

the—— 

Mr. FLORES. OK. I am going to move on. Ms. Wofford, did the 

Forest Service come into the Shenandoah Valley to the counties 

you mentioned and the communities and hold public input meetings? 

Ms. WOFFORD. Yes, sir. There were a series of public meetings. 

Mr. FLORES. They did? OK. And did you participate in those? 

Ms. WOFFORD. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. FLORES. And, Ms. Mall, did you participate in those as well? 

Ms. MALL. No, I did not. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Did you provide testimony, Ms. Wofford? 

Ms. WOFFORD. Yes, sir. We have commented several times on the 

Forest Plan. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Can this committee get copies of that testimony? 

Ms. WOFFORD. Certainly. I would be happy to provide it. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. That would be great if you could do that. 

Ms. Mall, is your organization involved in any litigation with the 

Forest Service on drilling? 

Ms. MALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. They are? OK. One lawsuit? Several lawsuits? How 

many? 

Ms. MALL. I am not a lawyer. I am not involved in the litigation 

myself. I would say probably several at any time. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. How many with respect to the George Washington National Forest? 

Ms. MALL. Actually none that I know of with the George Washington National Forest. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And, Ms. Wofford, your organization? Is it involved in any litigation with respect to the George Washington National Forest? 

Ms. WOFFORD. No, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. I am glad to hear that. The issue that was 

raised by the last panel seemed to be more related toward water. 

Even though one of the options was a ban on horizontal drilling, 

instead of trying to address the problem they shot another innocent 

bystander. 

Ms. Wofford, what do you think the problem is here? Is it water 

or is it something broader? 

Ms. WOFFORD. I think it is both. I think water is certainly part 

of the concern, but I think the concerns are broader. Rockingham 

County, for example—— 

Mr. FLORES. Short answers, too. 

Ms. WOFFORD. Sure.—said that they would be open to seeing this 

type of energy development on private lands if it is done in the appropriate place with appropriate regulations, but, please, not on 

76 

our public lands, the forestlands that provide so many other uses 

and benefits like water supply to the local communities. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Ms. Mall, you made several claims regarding 

the USGS saying that the science wasn’t there, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. You said that there weren’t enough regulators in various states. I don’t know what scientific basis you have 

to make that claim. 

But just hypothetically, under what circumstances would you 

find drilling for oil and gas in the George Washington National 

Forest to be acceptable? 

Ms. MALL. Well, I think there are probably some places where 

we would think it is not acceptable due to the risks. 

Mr. FLORES. Is that the case here? 

Ms. MALL. In some locations. Now, there are many technologies 

that are available to the industry that allow it to operate in much 

cleaner and safer ways than it generally does. In most cases we 

see—— 

Mr. FLORES. Such as? 

Ms. MALL. For example, using the most stringent well construction standards. That is typically stronger than what most states require and, in most cases, my understanding is the companies tend 

to comply with the state rules at a minimum—and not always go 

beyond what we know they can do that is safer. 

Capturing air emissions during a frac job, because there can be 

very toxic air emissions. That is another thing we know companies 

can do, but they don’t always do. 

So there are a list of things, in addition to how they manage the 

waste that comes out of the frac job, which can be quite toxic. 

There are a list of things we know companies can do that they 

don’t adopt uniformly across every operation. That would be a 

starting point to really know that the absolute safest practices 

were in place. 

Mr. FLORES. So just theoretically, if a company or an organization did do all of these things that you are talking about, would you 

find it acceptable to drill in the George Washington National Forest? 

Ms. MALL. I think it would depend on location. Every spot is different. How close it is to a water body, whether it is a steep slope, 

whether it is the middle of a hunting ground. There are lots of different criteria to take into account, but certainly we are not opposed to all drilling every place. 

Mr. FLORES. I am glad to hear that. OK. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. That concludes our questions. I want 

to thank each of the members of the panel for being here. Thank 

you for putting up with our delay earlier. Members of the committee may have additional questions for the record, and I would 

ask you to respond to these in writing. 

Is there any further business before we conclude? 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Holt? 

Mr. HOLT. I would like to ask unanimous consent to include in 

the record two articles written by Ian Urbina of The New York 

Times about wastewater quality issues associated with hydraulic 

fracturing. 

77 

Before my colleagues jump to ridicule these as not being scientific, peer-reviewed articles, I would comment that they appear 

to be well researched and well documented about, for example, radioactivity detected in the water. 

I thought it was important to include them in the record because 

in response to some comments I made earlier one of my colleagues 

asked to have included in the record an article from the Pittsburgh 

Tribune-Review saying that in a small selection of wells there was 

no radioactivity found, even though only six of the 14 drinking 

water plants submitted test results, the state had asked 25 wastewater treatment plants for results which were not included. 

So my point is this is also a newspaper article that doesn’t 

have—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. 

Mr. HOLT.—a thorough scientific basis, which only goes to illustrate the point that Witness Mall was making that there is a great 

deal to be learned yet. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Without any objection, so ordered. 

[The two New York Times articles follow:] 

Drilling Down 

Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush 

By IAN URBINA 

The New York Times 

Published: June 25, 2011 

Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they are 

drilling, saying they will deliver big profits and provide a vast new source of energy 

for the United States. 

But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep 

underground as the companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry e-mails 

and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells. 

In the e-mails, energy executives, industry lawyers, state geologists and market 

analysts voice skepticism about lofty forecasts and question whether companies are 

intentionally, and even illegally, overstating the productivity of their wells and the 

size of their reserves. Many of these e-mails also suggest a view that is in stark 

contrast to more bullish public comments made by the industry, in much the same 

way that insiders have raised doubts about previous financial bubbles. 

‘‘Money is pouring in’’ from investors even though shale gas is ‘‘inherently unprofitable,’’ an analyst from PNC Wealth Management, an investment company, wrote 

to a contractor in a February e-mail. ‘‘Reminds you of dot-coms.’’ 

‘‘The word in the world of independents is that the shale plays are just giant 

Ponzi schemes and the economics just do not work,’’ an analyst from IHS Drilling 

Data, an energy research company, wrote in an e-mail on Aug. 28, 2009. 

Company data for more than 10,000 wells in three major shale gas formations 

raise further questions about the industry’s prospects. There is undoubtedly a vast 

amount of gas in the formations. The question remains how affordably it can be extracted. 

The data show that while there are some very active wells, they are often surrounded by vast zones of less-productive wells that in some cases cost more to drill 

and operate than the gas they produce is worth. Also, the amount of gas produced 

by many of the successful wells is falling much faster than initially predicted by energy companies, making it more difficult for them to turn a profit over the long run. 

If the industry does not live up to expectations, the impact will be felt widely. 

Federal and state lawmakers are considering drastically increasing subsidies for the 

natural gas business in the hope that it will provide low-cost energy for decades to 

come. 

But if natural gas ultimately proves more expensive to extract from the ground 

than has been predicted, landowners, investors and lenders could see their investments falter, while consumers will pay a price in higher electricity and home heating bills. 

There are implications for the environment, too. The technology used to get gas 

flowing out of the ground—called hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking—can reVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:17 Mar 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\72151.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
78 

quire over a million gallons of water per well, and some of that water must be disposed of because it becomes contaminated by the process. If shale gas wells fade 

faster than expected, energy companies will have to drill more wells or hydrofrack 

them more often, resulting in more toxic waste. 

The e-mails were obtained through open-records requests or provided to The New 

York Times by industry consultants and analysts who say they believe that the public perception of shale gas does not match reality; names and identifying information 

were redacted to protect these people, who were not authorized to communicate publicly. In the e-mails, some people within the industry voice grave concerns. 

‘‘And now these corporate giants are having an Enron moment,’’ a retired geologist from a major oil and gas company wrote in a February e-mail about other companies invested in shale gas. ‘‘They want to bend light to hide the truth.’’ 

Others within the industry remain optimistic. They argue that shale gas economics will improve as the price of gas rises, technology evolves and demand for gas 

grows with help from increased federal subsidies being considered by Congress. 

‘‘Shale gas supply is only going to increase,’’ Steven C. Dixon, executive vice president of Chesapeake Energy, said at an energy industry conference in April in response to skepticism about well performance. 

Studying the Data 

‘‘I think we have a big problem.’’ 

Deborah Rogers, a member of the advisory committee of the Federal Reserve 

Bank of Dallas, recalled saying that in a May 2010 conversation with a senior economist at the Reserve, Mine K. Yucel. ‘‘We need to take a close look at this right 

away,’’ she added. 

A former stockbroker with Merrill Lynch, Ms. Rogers said she started studying 

well data from shale companies in October 2009 after attending a speech by the 

chief executive of Chesapeake, Aubrey K. McClendon. The math was not adding up, 

Ms. Rogers said. Her research showed that wells were petering out faster than expected. 

Robbie Brown contributed reporting from Atlanta 

Behind Veneer, Doubt on Future of Natural Gas 

By IAN URBINA 

The New York Times 

June 26, 2011 

Energy companies have worked hard to promote the idea that natural gas is the 

fossil fuel of tomorrow, and they have found reliable allies among policy makers in 

Washington. 

‘‘The potential for natural gas is enormous,’’ President Obama said in a speech 

this year, having cited it as an issue on which Democrats and Republicans can 

agree. 

The Department of Energy boasts in news releases about helping jump-start the 

boom in drilling by financing some research that made it possible to tap the gas 

trapped in shale formations deep underground. 

In its annual forecasting reports, the United States Energy Information Administration, a division of the Energy Department, has steadily increased its estimates 

of domestic supplies of natural gas, and investors and the oil and gas industry have 

repeated them widely to make their case about a prosperous future. 

But not everyone in the Energy Information Administration agrees. In scores of 

internal e-mails and documents, officials within the Energy Information Administration, or E.I.A., voice skepticism about the shale gas industry. 

One official says the shale industry may be ‘‘set up for failure.’’ ‘‘It is quite likely 

that many of these companies will go bankrupt,’’ a senior adviser to the Energy Information Administration administrator predicts. Several officials echo concerns 

raised during previous bubbles, in housing and in technology stocks, for example, 

that ended in a bust. 

Energy Information Administration employees also explain in e-mails and documents, copies of which were obtained by The New York Times, that industry estimates might overstate the amount of gas that companies can affordably get out of 

the ground. 

They discuss the uncertainties about how long the wells will be productive as well 

as the high prices some companies paid during the land rush to lease mineral 

rights. They also raise concerns about the unpredictability of shale gas drilling. 

79 

One senior Energy Information Administration official describes an ‘‘irrational 

exuberance’’ around shale gas. An internal Energy Information Administration document says companies have exaggerated ‘‘the appearance of shale gas well profitability,’’ are highlighting the performance of only their best wells and may be using 

overly optimistic models for projecting the wells’ productivity over the next several 

decades. 

While there are environmental and economic benefits to natural gas compared 

with other fossil fuels, its widespread popularity as an energy source is relatively 

new. As a result, it has not received the same level of scrutiny, according to some 

environmentalists and energy economists. 

The Energy Information Administration e-mails indicate that some of these difficult questions are being raised. 

‘‘Am I just totally crazy, or does it seem like everyone and their mothers are endorsing shale gas without getting a really good understanding of the economics at 

the business level?’’ an energy analyst at the Energy Information Administration 

wrote in an April 27 e-mail to a colleague. 

Another e-mail expresses similar doubts. ‘‘I agree with your concerns regarding 

the euphoria for shale gas and oil,’’wrote a senior officialin the forecasting division 

of the Energy Information Administration in an April 13 e-mail to a colleague at 

the administration. 

‘‘We might be in a ‘gold rush’ wherein a few folks have developed ‘monster’ wells,’’ 

he wrote, ‘‘so everyone assumes that all the wells will be ‘monsters.’ ’’ 

The Energy Information Administration’s annual reports are widely followed by 

investors, companies and policy makers because they are considered scientifically 

rigorous and independent from industry. They also inform legislators’ initiatives. 

Congress, for example, has been considering major subsidies to promote vehicles 

fueled by natural gas and cutting taxes for the industry. 

In any organization as big as the Energy Information Administration, with its 370 

or so employees, there inevitably will be differences of opinion, particularly in private e-mails shared among colleagues. A spokesman for the agency said that it 

stands by its reports, and that it has been clear about the uncertainties of shale 

gas production. 

‘‘One guiding principle that we employ is, ‘look at the data,’ ’’ said Michael Schaal, 

director of the Office of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels Analysis within the 

Energy Information Administration. ‘‘It is clear the data shows that shale gas has 

become a significant source of domestic natural gas supply.’’ 

But the doubts and concerns expressed in the e-mails and correspondence obtained by The Times are noteworthy because they are shared by many employees, 

some of them in senior roles. The documents and e-mails, which were provided to 

The Times by industry consultants, federal energy officials and Congressional researchers, show skepticism about shale gas economics, sometimes even from senior 

agency officials. 

The e-mails were provided by several people to The Times under the condition 

that the names of those sending and receiving them would not be used. 

Some of the e-mails suggest frustrations among the staff members in their attempt to push for a more accurate discussion of shale gas. One federal analyst, describing an Energy Information Administration publication on shale gas, complained 

that the administration shared the industry’s optimism. ‘‘It seems that science is 

pointing in one direction and industry PR is pointing in another,’’ wrote the analyst 

about shale gas drilling in an e-mail. ‘‘We still have to present the middle, even if 

the middle neglects to point out the strengths of scientific evidence over PR.’’ 

The Energy Information Administration, with its mission of providing ‘‘independent and impartial energy information to promote sound policymaking’’ and ‘‘efficient markets,’’ was created in response to the energy crisis of the 1970s because 

lawmakers believed that sound data could help the country avoid similar crises in 

the future. 

As a protection from industry or political pressure, the Energy Information Administration’s reports, by law, are supposed to be independent and do not require 

approval by any other arm of government. 

Its administrator, Richard G. Newell, who announced this month his plans to resign to take a job at Duke University, has hailed the prospects for shale gas, calling 

it a ‘‘game changer’’ in the United States energy mix. ‘‘The energy outlook for natural gas has changed dramatically over the past several years,’’ Mr. Newell told the 

Natural Gas Roundtable, a nonprofit group tied to the American Gas Association. 

‘‘The most significant story is the transformative role played by shale gas.’’ 

A number of factors have also helped create more interest in shale gas. The nuclear disaster in Japan in March has focused attention on the promise of natural 

gas as a safer energy source. 

80 

And last year, as energy market analysts warned about tougher federal regulations on oil and coal, particularly after the BP oil spill and the Massey coal mining 

accident, they also pointed to natural gas as a more attractive investment. 

But a look at the Energy Information Administration’s methods raises questions 

about its independence from energy companies, since the industry lends a helping 

hand to the government to compile those bullish reports. 

The Energy Information Administration, for example, relies on research from outside consultants with ties to the industry. And some of those consultants pull the 

data they supply to the government from energy company news releases, according 

to Energy Information Administration e-mails. Projections about future supplies of 

natural gas are based not just on science but also some guesswork and modeling. 

Two of the primary contractors, Intek and Advanced Resources International, provided shale gas estimates and data for the Energy Information Administration’s 

major annual forecasting reports on domestic and foreign oil and gas resources. 

Both of them have major clients in the oil and gas industry, according to corporate 

tax records from the contractors. The president of Advanced Resources, Vello A. 

Kuuskraa, is also a stockholder and board member of Southwestern Energy, an energy company heavily involved in drilling for gas in the Fayetteville shale formation 

in Arkansas. 

The contractors said they did not see any conflict of interest. ‘‘Firstly, the report 

is an extremely transparent assessment,’’ said Tyler Van Leeuwen, an analyst at 

Advanced Resources, adding that many experts agreed with its conclusions and that 

by identifying promising areas, the report heightened competition for Southwestern. 

Intek verified that it produced data for Energy Information Administration reports but declined to comment on questions about whether, given its ties to industry, it had a conflict of interest. 

Some government watchdog groups, however, faulted the Energy Information Administration for not maintaining more independence from industry. 

‘‘E.I.A.’s heavy reliance on industry for their analysis fundamentally undermines 

the agency’s mission to provide independent expertise,’’ said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a group that investigates 

federal agencies and Congress. 

‘‘The Chemical Safety Board and the National Transportation Safety Board both 

show that government agencies can conduct complex, niche analysis without being 

captured or heavily relying upon industry expertise,’’ Ms. Brian added, referring to 

two independent federal agencies that conduct investigations of accidents. 

These sorts of concerns have also led to complaints within the administration 

itself. 

In an April 27 e-mail, a senior petroleum geologist who works for the Energy Information Administration wrote that upper management relied too heavily on outside contractors and used ‘‘incomplete/selective and all too often unreal data,’’ much 

of which comes from industry news releases 

‘‘E.I.A., irrespective of what or how many ‘specialty’ contractors are hired, is NOT 

TECHNICALLY COMPETENT to estimate the undiscovered resources of anything 

made by Mother Nature, period,’’ he wrote. 

Energy officials have also quietly criticized in internal e-mails the department’s 

shale gas primer, a source of information for the public, saying it may be ‘‘on the 

rosy side.’’ 

The primer is written by the Ground Water Protection Council, a research group 

that, according to tax records, is partly financed by industry. 

The Ground Water Protection Council declined to respond to questions. 

Tiffany Edwards, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, said that the 

shale gas primer was never intended as a comprehensive review and that further 

study was continuing. 

Asked about the views expressed in the internal e-mails, Mr. Schaal says his administration has been very explicit in acknowledging the uncertainties surrounding 

shale gas development. 

He said news reports and company presentations were included among a range 

of information sources used in Energy Information Administration studies. Though 

the administration depends on contractors with specialized expertise, he added, it 

conforms with all relevant federal rules. 

And while production from shale gas has not slowed down and may not any time 

soon, he said, a lively debate continues within the administration about shale gas 

prospects. 

81 

Robbie Brown contributed reporting from Atlanta. Kitty Bennett contributed research. 

Mr. LAMBORN. If there is no further business—Mr. Flores? 

Mr. FLORES. I meant to ask one more question. This may be 

grossly out of order, but I was wondering if Ms. Mall could provide 

her testimony that she provided to the Forest Service when talking 

about drilling on the George Washington National Forest. 

Ms. MALL. That would be probably her testimony? I am sorry. 

Mr. FLORES. Did your organization provide testimony at these 

public input—— 

Ms. MALL. Comments? 

Mr. FLORES. Yes. 

Ms. MALL. No. We have not commented. 

Mr. FLORES. You didn’t. OK. 

Ms. MALL. No. Sorry. 

Mr. FLORES. Disregard. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. The committee will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A letter submitted for the record by Peter C. Walton follows:] 

5/5/2011 

7/6/2011 

To the House Committees on Agriculture & Natural Resources, 

I am a citizen of Rockingham County, Virginia. My concern, along with my fellow 

citizens, is hydro-fracking. Gas companies already have leases in our county, and 

we are not ok with what they intend to do on that land. We are all appalled that 

such a practice has ever been allowed to take place anywhere in this country, and 

are incredibly disappointed that our government could show such little concern 

forthe people. 

Everyone is on the same page: Fracking and other harmful mining procedures are 

no longer acceptable. Oil and Coal are no longer working. We MUST move forward 

immediately with new solar and wind technologies, before we have permanently ruined thousands of people’s drinking water. We cannot wait around for studies to be 

conducted on the effects of hydro-fracking; there is already enough evidence out 

there that proves its harmfulness. Far too much is at stake for this to continue. The 

rape of Mother Nature must end, now. 

I understand Natural Gas may seem like some sort of economic solution. However, it is not. Allowing innocent people’s water to be toxically polluted in order for 

temporary economic relief makes no sense at all. These people are being exploited 

for profit, and have no say in the matter. Exploitation without Representation. 

It seems obvious to me; shift all those billions and billions of dollars in the coal 

and gas industry into new energy sources. The potential negative consequences of 

not doing this are something that no human being wants to see. If fracking is allowed to go on in the US, and soon the rest of the world, we will no doubt have 

a global war for water on our hands. No amount of money can solve that problem. 

As far as creating jobs go, this time presents an excellent opportunity. Thousands 

of jobs can be created, if the money is moved away from the harmful oil and gas 

industries and put into Sustainable Housing projects. We need the unemployed portion of society more than ever right now. Jobs can be created in which people will 

go into homes, assess how energy efficient the home is, and then make it as ‘‘green’’ 

as it possibly can be. No need to create more mining and oil drilling jobs, which 

are hazardous to the health of workers anyway. 

My personal belief is that we must return to a way of life similar to that of the 

Native American people. The things mentioned above are a transition for those who 

are too scared to be one with nature again; the way humans were supposed to be. 

I hope you are on the same page, and I look forward to hearing what steps you 

take to ensure a bright future for Virginia and the rest of the Country. 

Respectfully, 

82 

Peter C. Walton 

I currently have around 150 signatures (and counting) on the following petition: 

We Citizens Agree to the Following Concerns 

June 25, 2011 Bergton, VA 

Over a million people are served by the purification of their drinking water by 

the George Washington National Forest. Our health, prosperity and livelihood are 

dependent upon the wise management of these lands. We, the citizens, are opposed 

to hydraulic fracturing and any other harmful gas drilling methods that may be allowed in the George Washington National Forest and on both federal and private 

lands. 

We suggest a 15 year moratorium in VA and West VA on any drilling permit approval until the EPA conducts its studies on fracking and the numerous complaints 

about air and water contamination, other hydro-geological studies are fully evaluated for the ecological ramifications of such drilling, gas companies full disclose 

chemicals and perfect their technologies, and that we have sufficient regulations in 

place and competent regulators for oversight of drilling operations. 

Whereas, 

1. Horizontal drilling and hydrofracking pose an unacceptable risk to our drinking 

water and the quality of wells, groundwater, aquifers, ponds, streams, rivers. 

Also such activity seriously impacts our air basin by toxic chemical emissions, 

and pollutants. 

2. Drilling will introduce over millions of gallons of undisclosed chemicals into our 

land, air and water, placing local residents, wildlife, and critical agriculture resources and watershed areas at risk. 

3. Communities where hydrofracking has occurred have experienced explosions, 

flammable drinking water, fracking fluid spills, stream contamination, fish kills, 

public health problems, and more. 

4. We do not have emergency services for such disasters and the cost of having 

them in place would mean additional financial strain on taxpayers. 

5. Gas drilling in Virginia will involve construction of a massive infrastructure of 

wellheads, pipelines, compressing stations, and processing centers spread across 

much of rural Rockingham County and Hardy County, West Virginia. Drilling 

on this scale will turn our forest area into industrial wastelands. 

6. Infrastructure development would likely involve extensive clearing of forest 

trees, 24-hour noise and light pollution, huge increases of truck traffic, damage 

to roads, and disruption to a quiet lifestyle that attract people to live here. Also 

drilling and related development are incompatible with agriculture, tourism, 

recreation; that will significantly alter current economic development including 

severe stresses on roadways. 

7. We want to protect those citizens who own land, homes, and their health from 

the potential dangers of drilling for natural gas. 

8. In view of these problems Rockingham County, and Hardy County is seriously 

understaffed and underfunded, and is in no position to regulate and effectively 

monitor drilling in Bergton and Criders area of Virginia. 

9. Natural gas is not ‘‘clean energy’’ but rather just another polluting, non-renewable fossil fuel contributing to atmospheric CO2 and Methane. 

10. We respect the rights of property owners to exploit or lease the mineral rights 

under their land so long as that use does not diminish the value of others’ property. Hyrdrofracking cannot be accomplished without permanently injuring the 

rights of adjoining, nearby and downstream landowners, in ways described 

above. 

‘‘We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when 

we created them.’’ –Einstein 

Would George Washington be proud if we destroy the forest named in his memory? I think not. 

Æ