By Greta Fenzl, Contributing Writer
While protestors marched outside, politicians and members of the energy industry gathered at the Shale Gas Insight Conference in Philadelphia to discuss the potential for Marcellus Shale and natural gas in the state of Pennsylvania.
Moderated by Jeff Cupful of Chevron, a five member panel including Pennsylvania Congressmen Jason Altmire, Mark Critz, Tim Murphy, Joe Pitts, and Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY), drilled down into the issues surrounding the drilling of Marcellus Shale and its economical potential throughout the state.
While differing on the finer points, mostly the members of the delegation offered support for the industry
Rep. Murphy particularly emphasized the economic possibilities for both the state of Pennsylvania and the nation as a whole. He mentioned the failing infrastructure and high taxes that are part of our reality, and speculated where that money is going instead – to foreign energy sources.
“We sent the OPEC nations $129 billion last year, and they have great roads and bridges.”
He claims that we could eventually not only be supporting ourselves energy-wise, but also be exporting natural gas to foreign nations for a profit. And beyond that, investing in an infrastructure such as the natural gas industry could provide jobs; in particular, 35,000 jobs for every $1 billion spent on infrastructure. Murphy was strong in his stance that there is no greater opportunity in the country for jobs than in natural gas.
In regards to the popular argument that legislators should push for wind and solar energy before non-renewables, Rep. Pitts made the argument that while it is good to have alternative energy sources, they are not always the most dependable. We need a way to be independent energy-wise, and have backup to the greener alternatives, because frankly, “sometimes the sun doesn’t shine, and the wind doesn’t blow.”
Yet with that progress comes a need for caution. According to Rep. Critz, who grew up in Southwestern PA during the coal mining heyday, everyone was working and everyone had a job, but the sky and the water were always orange from pollution. He emphasized that because mining involves both heavy equipment and human error, Pennsylvanians need to be smart as they begin to drill.
Overall, the greatest sentiment expressed by the panel as a whole was that Pennsylvanians know what is best for their state and its citizens, that there is no blanket legislation that works for everyone, and that the feds don’t necessarily know best.
As Rep. Altmire put it, “We can regulate ourselves at the state level, thank you very much, and we don’t need the EPA injecting themselves into the situation”
Loading ...
One Response
The EPA at present has very little regulatory impact on the Marcellus Shale drilling under the “Halliburton Loophole”. Gas drillers are exempt from the Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, Superfund, and Clean Air Acts. They also don’t have to disclose what all of the chemicals are to OSHA if they consider the chemicals “proprietary”. If these hydraulic drilling fluids are so safe, why are they exempt from telling “we, the people” who are supposed to benefit so much from this gas extracted with these “fracking” fluids? Why are the drillers exempt from regulations enforced by the EPA? Why are they opposed to drilling tax or extraction fees? If it is so safe, why are they opposed to drilling regulations and local ordinances? The state of Maryland is suing Chesapeake Energy, one of the biggest drillers after a well blow out that took the company 13 hours just to send a repair and clean up crew to the site of the accident. Once you mix the fracking fluid with water, and if that fluid is accidentally released into the watershed or leaked into the acquifer, there is no way physically or chemically to filter or distill the water from the fracking chemicals. Ask any organic chemist they will tell you so. It can’t be cleaned up. So if it takes 6 million gallons to frack a well where is all that water coming from and where is it going? How much will that cost? Fracking should be banned. It is too dangerous, it is too expensive and unnecessary for our energy needs. Read the study reported in the November 2009 Scientific American. We can meet the demand for energy with existing technology if we have the political will to put the capital into wind, solar water, geothermal and not into natural gas, oil, coal or nuclear. The Rocky Mountain Institute would also concur with this safe, renewable energy path. Stop fracking now!