Senate Hearing on Obama's Fracking Panel Excludes External Testimony, Glosses Over Threats

authordefault
on

When President Obama decided to include unconventional gas as a central pillar in his “Blueprint for a Clean Energy Future” he must have had an idea that this was going to create controversy. Some would say that a clean energy future and fracked gas are, to put it lightly, at odds with one another.  Perhaps that is why the President directed his Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to form a special advisory board to investigate the growing number of scientists, doctors, independent experts, environmental NGOs, and media outlets – DeSmogBlog included – concerned that fracking for unconventional gas threatens public health, the environment and the global climate.

Secretary Chu’s panel is officially known as the Natural Gas Subcommittee and is a project of the U.S. Energy Advisory Board. This panel, now often referred to as Obama’s Fracking Panel, has been formally discredited by a coalition of leading scientists and also by a collective of leading citizen and environmental groups. Most notoriously, the panel was called out for its strong financial ties to the gas industry.   
 
The panel was given 90 days to document their preliminary findings, which they released in a report on August 18th. Today, the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing to examine those early findings.   
 
From the outset, the hearing looked like the perfect opportunity for the subcommittee to congratulate itself for its own work. 

 
Dr. Daniel Yergin, one of the most formidable witnesses to testify at the hearing, is perhaps a good indicator of what today’s proceedings were designed to do. Already something of a natural gas convert, Yergin’s perspective is shaped by the background conviction that fracking should and will proceed. 
 
It looks as though the panel’s investigation is framed around the question of how to develop our unconventional gas assets, and not whether to.   
 
A brief look at the other participants, such as Dr. Stephen A. Holditch and Dr. Mark D. Zoback, show they hold a similar bias.

Dr. Holditch began his testimony [.docx] today with the expert-ish sentence, “Shale gas is for real.” He then went on to belittle concerns about the fracking process, repeating standard industry excuses about how fracking chemicals are similar to products we all have in our homes, like Clorox, Dawn dish soap and food products like guar gum. (Minus all the other toxic fracking chemicals he failed to mention, of course.)

Dr. Holditch did not hesitate to state his opinion “that the United States has a real opportunity to develop it’s [sic] unconventional gas reservoirs (shale gas, coal gas and tight gas).”

After acknowledging that the panel and the industry did not have all the relevant information to make declarative statements about the safety of fracking, and confirming that “there are real issues with water, air emissions, and community impact that must be addressed by the oil and gas companies” – Holditch nevertheless stated, “It is my opinion that current drilling and hydraulic fracturing activity does not adversely affect shallow drinking water aquifers.” 

 
Unfortunately the committee failed to invite any external reviewers, independent experts who could provide the outside criticism needed to keep the investigation directed at its end goal: increasing the standards, safety and oversight of fracking operations while limiting the associated risks to human and environmental health.
 
It is left to the Senate to ask the hard questions necessary to hold this panel accountable for their findings. But at this stage, there is little indication that this entire process will amount to the kind of tough crackdown the reckless gas industry warrants. 
 

Related Posts

on

The deal would place 40 percent of California’s idle wells in the hands of one operator. Campaigners warn this poses an "immense" risk to the state — which new rules could help to mitigate, depending on how regulators act.

The deal would place 40 percent of California’s idle wells in the hands of one operator. Campaigners warn this poses an "immense" risk to the state — which new rules could help to mitigate, depending on how regulators act.
Opinion
on

Corporations are using sport to sell the high-carbon products that are killing our winters, and now we can put a figure on the damage their money does.

Corporations are using sport to sell the high-carbon products that are killing our winters, and now we can put a figure on the damage their money does.
on

Inside the conspiracy to take down wind and solar power.

Inside the conspiracy to take down wind and solar power.
on

A new report estimates the public cost of underwriting U.S. plastics industry growth and the environmental violations that followed.

A new report estimates the public cost of underwriting U.S. plastics industry growth and the environmental violations that followed.