A speech for antifracking activists where she says it is so sweet to come together in one room to tell the story of our victory. But there is more. We found a network of environmentally active foundations funding the groups that produced this paper some Media Outlets that covered the paper, and Campaign Organizations that pressure the colombo administration. These financial ties total 3. 7 million. More than 60 million at the campaign phase. This was not an isolated case. We found at least five more Research Papers cited by the Cuomo Administration were antifracking foundations that provided funding to the researchers, Media Outlets, and campaigns that sees the research to drum up political opposition to shale development. The antifracking work of these foundations was led by the Park Foundation best at ithaca, new york whose president has openly admitted to funding antifracking research and call campaigning. In effect, these foundations build an echo chamber to drown out the facts in a debate over hydraulic fracturing and shale development. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Thank you. Mr. Holstein thank you, mr. Chairman. Think you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the issues associated with Unconventional Oil and natural gas production. The essential question before the committee is whether it is appropriate for state and local governments to exercise their longstanding Traditional Authority in order to ensure that their citizens and communities are reasonably protected from economic and environmental harm. We believe the answer to that question is yes. While Environmental Defense fund has not been engaged directly in the various debates over state and local hydraulic fracturing bands and other restrictions, we believe that many of the issues around which those debates revolve are legitimate and to do reflect scientifically supportable concerns. Unconventional oil and Natural Gas Development is a heavy industrial activity. It is understandable that states and municipalities are seeking to exercise their traditional role in protecting their communities, and i think that response is entirely consistent with state and Community Application of things like stoning, like zoning. Achieving a true balance of interest is critical. That means ensuring that Gas Developers are responsible with environmental protections striking the right balance also beans continuing to invest in the deployment of Energy Efficiency and renewable energy, even as our nation moves to dramatically expand our domestic oil and gas resources. I would like to touch on several of the key issues presented by hydraulic fracturing. One is well integrity. It is true that there has yet to be conclusive evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself has caused Drinking Water contamination however it is widely understood that for well construction and maintenance can create pathways for contamination of Groundwater Resources by introduced and naturally occurring chemicals. Water management. Between one million and 5 million gallons are typically used in a typical operation, and around 800 billion gallons of wastewater are generated annually by onshore oil and gas operations in the United States. Where the water comes from and how it is managed during storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal are issues of legitimate concern. Airquality. Because of intensive shell gas shale Gas Development wyoming has experienced concentrations comparable to those of los angeles. Polluted air from oil and gas operation is a growing concern across the country. In addition, methane emissions from natural gas operations are a potent source of Greenhouse Gas solution. Earthquakes. Reports of earthquakes occurring as a consequence of hydraulic fracturing are now widespread, including in oklahoma, arkansas, texas, ohio, and kansas. Whether those earthquakes are the result of High Pressure frack jobs or much were commonly highvolume wastewater disposal wells, earthquakes can be deeply alarming to members of the public. This week, the Oklahoma Geological survey released a statement concluding that it is very likely that most of the recent earthquakes in the central part of the state and there have been hundreds were triggered by the injection of produced water into disposal wells. Infrastructure. The impact on roads, water systems, schools, social services, land, and neighborhoods is a leading concern of the many communities across america that find themselves, often for the first time in the center of new energy development. In states like texas and oklahoma, hundreds of cities have adopted local rules that have enabled the Orderly Development of oil and gas. Unfortunately, such measures are under attack in many jurisdictions, including most recently in texas, where the legislature is considering a bill that would sweep away nearly all local authority. We think that would be an unfortunate overreaction. This maddening authority increase risks by creating regulatory gaps. It also stops communities from imposing even the most reasonable rules governing issues like well setbacks. The results can be even more determined citizen opposition to oil and gas operation. In many states, new regulatory measures have not kept pace with the intense right of new oil and Gas Development which of course is made possible by hydraulic fracturing and other new technologies. Local communities have become increasingly restless about shale and oil and Gas Development within their borders, and as i note in my testimony, many communities and states have very little and in some cases no experience with oil and gas operations. While drilling bans may not be the solution in the long run they surely do reflect a need for government at the federal, state, and local level to take more aggressive actions to protect the environment and the economy. Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts. Rep. Smith thank you. I recognize myself questions. Ms. Craddick, you mention in your statement that much of the criticisms directed towards fracking is unfounded and inaccurate and i pointed out in my Opening Statement that the administration is now 0 for 3 in their accusations that fracking contaminates water. What is the harm caused by this kind of misinformation, and what can we do about it . Ms. Craddick first and foremost and i appreciate the question a lot of harm is caused by misinformation and i think part of the job as a regulator is to ensure that we are out there inspecting and doing our jobs. But when you look at a fracking ban like what is proposed in texas, and we always want to make sure we are respectful of the voters, but i think misinformation is part of what caused the fracking ban. It is the taking of private Property Rights. That is a real challenge that all of us respect. Citizens should be able to develop their own interests. It is also an economic problem. Just to give you a little perspective of where texas is last year, the oil and gas industry put into the texas economy 15. 7 billion. Thats both property tax, all kinds of taxes, but also payments to mineral interest zoners. They created direct and indirect, two point million two million jobs in the state. I think those jobs will go away and not come back. Rep. Smith thank you. Doctor, you mentioned two studies that were cited by new york to justify their banding in fracking. Euros study refuted their findings. You mentioned several times the bias involved in those studies in the coverage of the studies. What accounts for the bias . What drives the bias . What is the motive and what can be done . Turn on your mic. Dr. Siegel that is an excellent question. I cant read into the minds of the researchers of why they designed the study the way they did. But as i said in my testimony it struck me when i first saw the paper, the first in 2011, that the sampling appeared to be done in a way to highlight places where a few gas well problems had occurred. Some have occurred, a few handfuls. It struck me if their goal was to come up with an assessment of a general systemically is there a problem with gas wells they should have sampled differently. In new york, it got such impact, i think it had to do with the Media Coverage and the promotion of the paper. People picked up on that. How to prevent that i really dont know. It is a big issue of how scientists are perceived by the public, and how to present the best science there is in a way that the public can understand. Rep. Smith mr. Siegel and mr. Loman, you discovered this network of foundations and activists who seem to engage in what we might call advocacy science, which i dont think his science at all. You might take a swing at how do we counter this bias that you have discovered, why it is not scientific, and what we can do about it. Mr. Loman i mentioned in my testimony that i live in colorado, in denver, which is a major it is good to see you congressman. [laughter] i have the great privilege of working alongside and interacting with on a daily basis and then and women of oil and Gas Industries in colorado, who make the industry run. Geologists, engineers, technical experts. Oil and gas business is fundamentally a scientific enterprise. Without the science of geology you dont know where to get the oil and gas. Without engineering, you dont know how to build a well. Or turn it into consumer goods. If there is one thing that i can convey from my discussions with them, it is that they just want a debate based on facts. They just want a debate based on facts, because as practitioners of science they know that the facts, while not being perfect is most certainly safe. In terms of the undisclosed conflicts and bias that you see sometimes in research and in some via platforms that claim to be news outlets, that should be more clearly disclosed. I am here at the committees day, very clearly an advocate of the oil and gas industry, it is something i am very proud of. I chose to go to work in oil and gas after a long, happy career as a reporter. People know where i am coming from. They can judge for themselves if i am somebody worth listening to or not. One of the things i think you may have noticed about my testimony is that i was pointing people to things, pointing people to authoritative sources from outside the industry. Particularly environmental regulators. So you dont have to take my word for it. Rep. Smith thank you. The Ranking Members recognized. Rep. Johnson thank you, mr. Chairman. I am seeking information and i am looking at an article published in the wall street journal. It talked about the Oklahoma Geological survey, saying that it is now considered very likely that most of the hundreds of earthquakes in the state was triggered by the intention of producing water and disposal water in disposal wells. A Small University in dallas, texas indicated that 2013 northwest of fort worth was also a likely cause by wastewater injection. Now, i dont see anything wrong with the findings. What concerns me is the denial of the findings. It would seem to me that if these findings continue, even with the university of texas research, are we addressing the findings . That is my major concern. Just last weekend, there was a Major Incident just northwest of fort worth, near arlington. A familys house collapsed. The water everyone was told not to drink the water. I have never found anything wrong with research. But my feeling is that once we find findings, rather than denying it is happening, can we start to address the issue . What do we get from denying citizens from being so fearful that they dont want to see that near their homes . I would like to see mr. Lomans would you address that . I am trying i just want the information so we cannot just focus on what can we do about it . Rep. Smith dr. Siegel well, i would never deny that the injection of water at extremely high rates wouldnt potentially cause earthquakes. I have seen the studies usgs has done, and there are a number not many, but if you highcapacity injection wells which produce waters are being injected. The remedy to that is to inject, probably, at much smaller rates. Oil wells injecting at lower volumes. I certainly wouldnt deny those results. They come from very credible sources. In terms of allaying the public spheres the publics fears im not sure how to do that. In the context of what you just said, it is fairly well known that if you inject too much fluid at a given location, you could induce an earthquake. Having said that, from my reading of the journals in the literature being produced on the earthquakes in oklahoma and elsewhere, most of them are the kind you cant feel, but there are some you can. Rep. Johnson i have felt them. Dr. Siegel i would never deny that. But the solution to that, although this is not my area of expertise, my understanding is that you would have more injection wells spread out over a larger area and you wouldnt have that kind of problem. At least that is the sense i get for my colleagues. Rep. Johnson mr. Loman . Mr. Loman yes. My issue is almost never with the actual research, but the way those findings get politicized and misrepresented by groups to say that hydraulic fracturing even though we are talking about a completely separate process when they use that to build a case for banning fracking. On the issue of seismicity, i always go back to some testimony that was presented to the United States senate a couple years ago by one of the nations leading geophysicists, affair for university geophysicist. A Stanford University geophysicist. He went against the Obama Administration on this issue he just wanted to put it in perspective. For instance, he said that there are more than 140,000 of these wastewater disposal wells used by the oil and gas industry, but other industries too. The vast majority of those have been operating safely for decades. It is the context and it is the lack of a factual discussion of the research that i take issue with and i hear about all the time from geologists inside the industry, who just want the debate focused on facts rather than it being politicized and sensationalized, in an effort to run a Media Campaign to ban fracking. Rep. Johnson thank you. Ms. Craddick . Rep. Smith you went over more than i did. [laughter] rep. Johnson one more question. Rep. Smith the Ranking Member will be recognized. Rep. Johnson thank you. We are aware that some of these incidents happen. My concern is when people get concerned, it is real to them. Is the answer to just keep them from expressing it by keeping them from having local ordinances, or do we make some type of recommendation to move out of these urban areas perhaps some other area . No matter what we can say, i was in my office which is downtown dallas, in the building shook a week ago. I said, i am on the sixth floor that could not be a car. Then the news came on and said it was an earthquake. We are not accustomed to earthquakes in the area, but now we are. Therey are happening very frequently. Is it stupid to say people dont want that to happen near their homes . Because to me, to say you are not going to pass an ordinance to stop this do we have the funds to pay these people when their homes get torn up, when their health is affected . Ms. Craddick thank you for the question. Obviously we take seismicity is very seriously. Last year, we hired a seismologist for the first time that we have ever for the first time ever, because we are looking for answers. I am not sure it is always oil and gas related. However, we have been out inspecting on a regular basis we have rules to be followed. Based on recommendations from our seismologists we adjusted some roles for saltwater disposal wells and are following those rules because they think we are trying to be respectful and responsive. We are still looking at the science and data like everyone else. We think our rules and information have to be based on good science. But at the same time, we have been up and down townhall meetings. We want to be involved with the communities so they understand what we do, and that we have very stringent rules you mentioned arlington with a potential well that had some problems. We were on scene once we got the call within an hour, and were on scene for 24 hours straight, and are continuing to follow up with that well to make sure our rules are being followed. We take being a regulator and inspector and if a rule is not followed, and we have a stringent enforcement process. I think part of our challenge is to communicate that information to local communities and local residents, and we are as we speak trying to up our communication efforts. We do work with cities and we want to continue to do that. Rep. Johnson one more question. When peoples homes collapse, when they have that kind of incident, what responsibility does the company have . Ms. Craddick if it is proven that they have the right to file a lawsuit, we have if a well has a problem a rule has been broken, then we do enforcement penalties. They have the ability to file a lawsuit. Rep. Johnson thank you. Rep. Smith thank you. The gentleman from california is recognized. Rep. Rohrbacher we pride ourselves in believing in local controls. However, with that said, i would like to ask you mentioned hundreds of earthquakes. When people who talk about when people talk about earthquakes, we californians know what earthquakes are. What was the dollar damage done by all these earthquakes in oklahoma . Mr. Holstein i dont know sir. Rep. Rohrbacher ok. You mentioned hundreds of earthquakes that is striking. I think that does anyone else have any idea what the dollar damage was . Or was it that was an earthquake . Do we know what the dollar damage . I would ask the panel to get back to me with that information,