The Washington Examiner today takes note of the kneejerk reaction against development of the Marcellus Shale’s natural gas resources, made possible through hydrofracturing technology. From “Another enviro scare aimed at oil, gas“:

A letter refuting the fact-challenged New York Times editorial that attacked the hydrofracturing technology used to develop natural gas.

To the Editor:

“The Halliburton Loophole” (editorial, Nov. 3), about hydraulic fracturing, dismisses a 60-year record of safety with the utterance of a single word: Halliburton.

Regulation of fracturing, a natural gas drilling process in use since the 1940s, has always been left to the states, not the Environmental Protection Agency. The Times endorses legislation that it says will “restore” E.P.A. authority over the process. But how can you restore something to the E.P.A. that it never had in the first place?

The campaign to empower the E.P.A. with authority over fracturing is an effort to shut down the process in its entirety.

That’s why The Times supports it, and why the rest of New York shouldn’t.

Lee Fuller
Washington, Nov. 3, 2009

The writer is senior policy adviser for Energy in Depth, a coalition of oil and natural gas producers.

So the thesis upon which the Times editorial was built was wrong. Seems like it should warrant an actual correction.

On November 2, The New York Times ran an editorial denouncing the lack of federal regulation of the use of hydrofracturing technology to develop shale natural gas, “The Halliburton Loophole.” Waving around the Halliburton and Dick Cheney boogie-men is what passes for argument for the Times these days, and apparently the Times mistakes state regulation with no regulation.

In any case, the editorial was just wrong. EnergyInDepth, an alliance of natural gas producers, rebutted the opinion piece with facts.

One-part revisionist history, one-part direct advocacy on behalf of the FRAC Act, the piece adopts a familiar tactic among opponents of responsible energy development: Break off legitimate debate, scurry off to the closest, safest corner, and commence launch of ad hominem attacks upon those with whom you disagree. This section is typical of the piece:

Among the many dubious provisions in the 2005 energy bill was one dubbed the Halliburton loophole, which was inserted at the behest of — you guessed it — then-Vice President Dick Cheney … It stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate … hydraulic fracturing.

Quite a story to tell: Unfortunately, not a single bit of it is true. Hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated nationally by EPA – not today, not before the bipartisan 2005 energy bill passed (supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama), not at any point during the 35-year run of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

That’s just the start.

We wait for the correction.

When Daniel Yergin writes about historic development in energy production, one pays attention. In today’s Wall Street Journal, joined by his colleague Robert Ineson, Yergin examines the rise of natural gas production in the United States made possible by technological advances that open up vast shale deposits to exploitation. From “America’s Natural Gas Revolution“:

The biggest energy innovation of the decade is natural gas—more specifically what is called “unconventional” natural gas. Some call it a revolution.

Yet the natural gas revolution has unfolded with no great fanfare, no grand opening ceremony, no ribbon cutting. It just crept up. In 1990, unconventional gas—from shales, coal-bed methane and so-called “tight” formations—was about 10% of total U.S. production. Today it is around 40%, and growing fast, with shale gas by far the biggest part.

The potential of this “shale gale” only really became clear around 2007. In Washington, D.C., the discovery has come later—only in the last few months.

Making this development possible has been hydrofracturing, or fraccing, the technique of injecting pressurized liquids into the strata to fracture the shale and free the gas. (See Shopfloor.org’s previous posts on the topic.) The potential of this gas development is especially important economically to northeastern states — and industry — because the Marcellus Shale is close to markets in New York, Pennsylvania and other heavy energy consuming areas.

Earlier in the decade, natural gas prices soared as demand grew, spiking as Hurricane Katrina disrupted supplies. Price and price volatility were big factors in driving natural-gas consuming industries like fertilizer and chemical manufacturing overseas, but now…well, there’s reason for optimism.

Except, as the authors note:

[Industrial] users and the utilities with their long investment horizons—both of which have been whipsawed by recurrent cycles of shortage and surplus in natural gas over several decades—are inherently skeptical and will require further confirmation of a sustained shale gale before committing.

Skepticism also arises because of the growing environmentalist/NIMBY alliance dedicated to regulating hydrofraccing into submission, with the activist journalism outfit, ProPublica.org, serving as the movement’s house organ. States now regulate this aspect of drilling, and the regulators stand by the quality and safety of their oversight. (See the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission for details.)

But federal regulation is always superior to state regulation, right? That at least is the theory of sponsors of bills – H.R. 2766 and S.1215 — to bring hydrofraccing under the Clean Water Act authority, even though as Yergin and Ineson note, shale strata lie much, much deeper than watersheds. Today, the predictable New York Times adds its support for the bills in an editorial, “The Halliburton Loophole.”

State regulation is not a “loophole,” and even invoking the bugaboo of Halliburton does not make it one.

History tells us the real goal, at least for the environmentalists, behind legislation to impose a Clean Water Act regime over hydrofracturing is project-halting litigation. So you can understand industry’s skepticism.

More…

• Houston Chronicle, “Louisiana shale could change fate of U.S. energy supply“
• Houston Chronicle, “Shale gas is producing jobs, stimulating the economy“
• Natural gas producers group, EnergyInDepth