Let’s get a few things straight right off the bat. Hydraulic fracturing is not new; it’s been a widely deployed as safe extraction technique over 1.1 million times and has been around since 1949. Secondly, and a point not mentioned in the question by in the National Journal question, fracking fluids are more than 99.5 percent water and sand. The additives used amount to less than one half of one percent – many of which can be found under your kitchen sink. These additives are used for several reasons; to prevent pipe corrosion, kill bacteria and to assist in forcing the water and sand down-hole to fracture the targeted formation.

Every well site, in every state is required by law to have a list of additives contained in the fracking fluid on site in case of an emergency, they’re called material safety data sheets, or MSDS. In Pennsylvania, the top environmental regulator has these additives listed on their website. Seems like disclosure to me.

However, the debate about hydraulic fracturing is more about EPA regulation of the process, which, as mentioned above, has been successfully regulated by individual states since the inception of the technology in 1949, than disclosure.

State regulators know their state best. A one-size fits all approach, as some are advocating, is typical Washington. But more importantly, by giving the EPA regulatory oversight of this process, the environmental movement scores a victory by shutting down the exploration of oil and natural gas as regulations are written. And it’s core, that’s exactly what the green movement seeks to accomplish.

So to answer the question, Congress should not do anything in the interim, states regulators continue to do a fine job in regulating this process. And if the EPA study currently underway is routed in science and fact, chances are it will arrive at the same conclusion as the 2004 EPA report which found HF to be a safe process and one that does not pose a threat to drinking water aquifers.

Natural gas has an important role to play in America’s transition to a cleaner energy future, and fracking helps produce natural gas more efficiently. However, fracking for natural gas is acceptable only if safeguards on the entire extraction process are in place. And right now, they are not.

The consequences speak for themselves. Numerous investigations show that insufficiently regulated natural gas extraction has been shown to contaminate drinking water and endanger human health.

To a significant extent, natural gas companies have been left to police themselves, but their track record of explosions and contamination reveals many are not up to the job. And after all, why should they be? Their job is to produce gas and make money; it is the government’s job to look out for us, for the people. We need government agencies to step in and demand that companies operate in ways that safeguard public health and safety and preserve our communities.

Right now, that responsibility falls to the states, but their performance varies widely. Fracking is going on in about 30 different states; some of them have stronger safeguards than others. There should be a minimal federal floor of regulations so that citizens in every state can rest assured that their water has a basic level of protection.

After all, does the industry really want each state to go through the time and expense of developing its own rules—rules that could require the same company to operate differently in different states? I worked for many years in state government and this is clearly an instance where uniform federal rules will make the most sense from all perspectives. Yet when industry fights federal safeguards, many people assume it is not because industry really prefers a patchwork of different rules, but because industry feels it can get “sweeter” deals in states or that some states will be slow to act.

Clear, comprehensive federal rules would dispel that suspicion. NRDC is calling on Congress to close the Halliburton loophole that exempts fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, and we are urging the EPA to use its investigation of fracking to evaluate the full range of potential impacts, as well as to conduct much-needed field studies to collect real data. A clear set of best practices will help all.

As is so often the case, pitting jobs versus the environment is a false choice. Creating federal regulations for fracking will not inhibit the practice—it will only make it safer for workers and community members alike and bring positive benefits in the form of clean water and safe communities. There are no tradeoff or negative economic impacts involved in making an ongoing practice cleaner.

Hydraulic fracturing, coupled with horizontal drilling, is the key production method which has not only aided in the production of oil and gas from more than one million oil and gas wells over the past nearly 60 years, but it continues to aid the production from thousands and wells every year. In fact, in deep and tight formations, production is dependent on horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, or both. Recent reports point to reserves of natural gas of over 2,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). At today’s demand, that estimate alone is enough natural gas to meet demand for the next 100 years. Only 1 Tcf of natural gas can heat 15 million homes for a year or fuel 12 million natural gas powered vehicles for a year. What is significant is that much of the increase noted in the report comes from estimates of shale gas found in formations throughout the U.S. However, shale resources are largely only economically and technologically available due to hydraulic fracturing.

Importantly, natural gas production from shale has benefited local and state governments, royalty owners, and overall local economies substantially. For example, production in the Barnett Shale is responsible for over 110,000 jobs, $4.5 billion in royalty payments, and over $10 billion in increased economic activity in north Texas. The Haynesville Shale in Louisiana has created 33,000 jobs, $2.4 billion in business sales, $3.9 billion in salaries, and $3.2 billion in royalty payments. The Fayetteville Shale has drawn business and capital investment in the area of $22 billion, the creation of 11,000 jobs, and estimates of new state revenues of more than $2 billion by 2012. In Oklahoma, exploration for natural gas accounts for 80% of the state’s energy production, and one in seven jobs in Oklahoma is directly or indirectly supported by the crude oil and natural gas industry. Oil and gas accounts for 25% of all taxes paid in the state.

The Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and New York reportedly contains 516 Tcf of natural gas which is enough to satisfy U.S. demand for more than 35 years. Pennsylvania State University issued studies in 2009 and May 2010. It reported that in 2009, Marcellus gas producers spent $4.5 billion just to develop gas resources. It estimates that producers will spend $8 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011. The economic activity from this development simply continues to grow. The study estimates that it will generate $1.8 billion in local tax revenues in 2010-11 and employment of more than 88,000 jobs in 2010 and over 111,000 in 2011.

While States have been regulating oil and gas exploration and production for years, liberals in Washington now want the regulation of hydraulic fracturing to take place from Washington. The fact is however, Republicans and Democrats alike support State regulation. Democratic Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has recognized the value of the practice. In the Denver Business Journal, the Governor characterized the bills pending in Congress imposing new federal regulation on hydraulic fracturing as “a new and potentially intrusive regulatory program.” My colleague Senator Byron Dorgan has at least on a couple of occasions spoken at length on the Senate floor recognizing hydraulic fracturing as a crucial technique to production in the Bakken Shale.

Keeping regulation in the States is backed up by a number of recent studies. The Department of Energy and Ground Water Protection Council released a report in May 2009 titled, “State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources” where it described state regulations on all oil and gas production to protect against groundwater contamination. This DOE and GWPC report ultimately concluded that federal regulations on fracturing would be “costly, duplicative of state regulations, and ultimately ineffective because such regulations would be too far removed from field operations.” Equally interesting, the report also concluded that the “only alternative to fracturing in reservoirs with low permeability such as shale would be to simply have to drill more wells.”

These findings mirror EPA’s 2004 report of hydraulic fracturing in coal bed methane CBM production. In this report, EPA conducted a review of all 11 major coal basins across the country and of 200 peer-reviewed publications. It reviewed 105 comments in the Federal Register. It requested information from 500 local and county agencies in states where CBM production occurs. It interviewed 50 local and state government agencies, industry representatives, and 40 citizens groups which alleged drinking water contamination from hydraulic fracturing. After completing this 4 year study, EPA concluded that, “the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into CBM wells poses little or no threat to underground sources of drinking water and does not justify additional study at this time.”

Additionally, Penn State’s 2009 study commented that proposals to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act pose yet another serious threat to the development of the Marcellus Shale and other unconventional gas sources. Why? Because it unnecessarily imposes federal regulation on top of regulation the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality is already demonstrating it is able to conduct.

America has tremendous natural gas reserves. When the U.S. is approaching 10% unemployment and when we want energy security and independence from foreign energy, why would we want to go out of our way to restrict the means to extract our own resources that has demonstrated effectiveness and safety for 60 years? Hydraulic fracturing is a safe production technique that is thoroughly regulated by the states. We have a 60 year history to prove it. This country cannot afford to limit the production of its domestic energy resources due to unfounded, anecdotal rumors of environmental damage and the usual hysterical claims from extremist environmental organizations looking for their next crusade.

Natural gas is, and will continue to be, an important part of our energy future. However, drilling, extracting, and processing natural gas has significant adverse impacts on water, air, lands, and human safety.

Even more disquieting is the fact that the industry enjoys a number of unmerited exemptions from environmental laws - laws designed to protect our communities, lands, and waters. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. That law also exempted the oil and gas industry’s construction activities from compliance with the stormwater run-off provisions of the Clean Water Act. Moreover, oil and gas companies are not required to disclose to the public what chemicals they are injecting underground during their drilling and fracking operations.

Now communities across America are seeing the results of such a severe lack of oversight. Hundreds of cases of water contamination have been documented, and state regulatory agencies have had trouble keeping up. In fact, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued 1,435 violations to natural gas companies in only 2 ½ years, and 952 of those were identified as likely to harm the environment. At this point in time, the laws and regulations providing for air and water quality, the safe use and disposal of toxic chemicals, and the protection of lands are inadequate. We have a long way to go to assure that natural gas is truly a “clean” fossil fuel.

Because the industry has shown that it is unable to take steps towards better self-monitoring and regulation, it is the government’s role to enact policies that make natural gas drilling safer for people and the environment. While EPA conducts its study of hydraulic fracturing over the next two years, Congress should ensure as a first step that the chemicals used during natural gas development are publicly disclosed, that hydraulic fracturing operations comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and that the industry’s construction activities comply with the Clean Water Act. If there is anything that we can learn from the BP oil spill, it is that lax oversight, supervision, and regulation only leads to disaster. If natural gas is going to play a growing role in our energy mix, it must be done right—in a way that does not endanger people, communities, or ecosystems.

State governments are best positioned to oversee natural gas extraction, and that’s where oversight of this clean energy bounty should stay. Several states are moving forward with common-sense disclosure requirements--with natural gas companies’ cooperation and support.

It’s true that nat gas offers profound economic opportunities to local communities throughout our nation—supporting 2.8 million American jobs. And it is also true that we can and do routinely use hydraulic fracturing in more than 30 states to develop this clean energy resource in a safe and responsible manner.

Natural gas production is subject to federal, state and local regulations that cover everything from initial permits to well construction to worker safety to water disposal. Used for power generation, natural gas has half the carbon emissions of coal, it has 80% fewer nitrogen oxide emissions and it has virtually no emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury and particulate pollution. Translation: Cleaner energy and cleaner air. In transportation, natural gas is significantly cleaner and cheaper than traditional fuel—and capable of powering the heaviest and busiest vehicles on the road. This offers a significant opportunity to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil from unstable parts of the world.

Natural gas producers are committed to being good neighbors and responsible stewards of the land. We will continue to work closely with the states to address public questions and concerns and to develop this abundant American resource in a safe and responsible way. We also have every confidence that a science-based review by the EPA will reaffirm the safety of hydraulic fracturing.

The natural gas community has supported job growth and a tax boon for local communities at a time when the larger economy is struggling to get back on its feet. In addition to the jobs, nationwide, the industry contributed $385 billion to the economy in 2008, according to IHS global Insight.

There is no trade off here. All Americans deserve jobs, local economic growth and a safe environment. That’s the promise of abundant, domestic supplies of clean natural gas.

(These comments were submitted by Jason Hutt and Matt Armstrong of the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP)

Given that Congress requested that EPA conduct this hydraulic fracturing study, federal legislative action prior to publication of EPA's report is misguided, and would reinforce the cynical view that perception matters more than reality. By requesting the study, Congress demonstrates that its information regarding hydraulic fracturing is lacking, and so any legislation curtailing or further regulating the practice will implicitly rely not on science but on unproven allegations for justification. The strategic advantages—economic, environmental and energy security—of the responsible development of America's abundant natural gas reserves are too important to let the public discourse be governed by misinformation, fear and NIMBYism.

From industry's perspective, hydraulic fracturing is not a new or revolutionary technology. Use of the technology in conjunction with new horizontal drilling techniques has made the shale gas boom possible. Many if not most of the 900,000 currently producing onshore wells have been fraced. Given this background, controversy regarding the use of fracing in deeper shale formations, where thousands of feet and millions of millions of tons of hard rock separate the producing formation from shallow fresh water zones, is somewhat perplexing. That said, shale gas drilling is increasing in parts of the country less familiar with the energy production industry and hydraulic fracturing in particular, and policymakers and industry alike need to take community concerns seriously. In addition, hydraulic fracturing is an easy issue for environmental groups to demagogue, and they've been very effective on that front.

It is a real struggle, then, to balance community concerns generated by real impacts versus community concerns generated by the tremendous number of misconceptions regarding the practice. Stakeholders need to have a mature, informed discussion about how to improve the existing regulatory framework in ways that are responsive to the increase in development and real community concern. No energy produced, whether in or outside of the United States, is produced without risk and without some environmental cost. In the natural gas industry, those risks (which largely arise from the surface handling of chemicals and the disposal of wastewater) are managed through state oil and gas regulations, through water resource regulations, through hazardous materials transportation laws, through effluent limits under the Clean Water Act, through the Safe Drinking Water Act's Underground Injection Control program (for disposal of produced water through injection), and others. Industry is making tremendous progress in managing water withdrawals and learning to treat and use produced water in frac jobs, reducing the already comparatively minimal water demands that shale gas drilling makes on our resources. Those states that have seen a dramatic spike in exploration and production activity have been quick but deliberate in adjusting their regulations accordingly, and many of the stated goals of the environmental groups on hydraulic fracturing, such as chemical disclosure and management of water resources, have been or are being addressed by state regulation—for example, see the latest programs taking effect in Wyoming and Pennsylvania.

It is difficult to see a serious deficiency that federal legislation is urgently needed to address. Proposed legislation—including the so-called FRAC Act—is a solution in search of a problem. Such legislation may be warranted to the extent the EPA study reveals such a problem. Of course, EPA's 2004 scientific study focused on fracturing the shallower coalbed methane formations, where the potential contamination risk is greater, and found that only a minimal threat was posed. In the meantime, though, the track record for hydraulic fracturing is a good one, states are moving quickly to address increased drilling activity and to respond to community questions about what's used in the hydraulic fracturing process. The marginal benefit of increased federal regulation is simply not a net positive for this country's economy or environment. Indeed, the threat of federal legislative, regulatory and enforcement efforts paralleling EPA's study harms the atmosphere of collaboration, transparency and disclosures needed to produce an EPA study that all stakeholders—industry, environmental groups and citizens—view as a credible statement on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater. In addition, the difficulty of crafting federal legislation is enhanced by the fact that hydraulic fracturing involves inherently local issues that receive different attention and priority around the country—for example, protection of air resources, protection of local watersheds, impacts on roads, impacts on water supplies for agricultural and other needs. One size does not fit all and one size cannot fit all because hydraulic fracturing is done differently in different geologic formations with different resources to protect.

Even the Republican Congress that passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 waited for EPA to conclude its study of hydraulic fracturing in coalbed methane formations before overruling by statute the Eleventh Circuit's LEAF decisions. Surely this Congress (and this Administration) can abide by that order of policy formation and allow EPA scientists time to complete the assessment that Congress directed them to do.

The clamor against hydraulic fracturing is being spearheaded by individuals and organizations who are generally opposed to mineral extraction of any type. These are the same ‘true believers’ who argue we can satisfy all the nation’s future energy needs through a combination of renewables, efficiency and conservation. By advocating that EPA get into the business of regulating fracking—a function that has been performed effectively by the various states for decades—the anti-drilling crowd hopes to retard development of this abundant and versatile domestic energy resource that can reduce our dependence on imported oil while heating our homes, generating electricity, powering motor vehicles, and providing the basic material for fertilizers and other petrochemical-based products.

What’s more, shale gas offers a unique opportunity for economic revival of many chronically depressed areas of the nation, especially the southern tier of New York State. In a study prepared last year for Broome County (NY), we found that shale gas production in this one county would generate close to $20 billion in new economic activity over a 10-year period while supporting thousands of new jobs and providing much-needed state and local tax revenue.

Is producing, gathering, processing and delivering natural gas from shale formations completely risk-free? Of course not. But the minimal risks must be weighed against the huge economic and national security benefits.

For many energy policy makers, natural gas -- a relatively clean burning fuel that has for many years been abundantly available in the United States -- dominates the critical path toward a more carbon efficient economy.

Natural gas has heated our homes, fueled our power plants and factories, and increasingly is a transportation fuel of choice for many heavy-duty and some light-duty applications. “Clean Natural Gas” powers many of today’s municipal mass transit and freight fleets. The US Department of Energy’s “Clean Cities Program” has, for decades, promoted conversions from diesel to natural gas.

The advent of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking,” has dramatically increased the amount of domestic natural gas available for use. This technique uses a high-pressure mixture of 99.5% water and sand with other substances to create fractures in rocks and thus release the trapped natural gas. Several recent and highly publicized incidents have raised questions about the safety and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing.

Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency has held hearings for the public to voice concerns about the potential for hydraulic fracturing to increase the risk of explosions or contaminate drinking water. Open public dialogue is an important part of our national policy-making process. More importantly, the public has the right to voice concerns regarding the impacts of proposed programs or policies and to have their questions answered. Although the EPA has already reviewed the technical issues, conducted the environmental analyses, and determined that fracking is highly unlikely to contribute to the contamination of drinking water, these hearings are still good opportunities to learn about the public’s concerns and fears as well as an opportunity to share important information and continue to educate the public.

Regardless of individual feelings or opinions, America’s national energy policy must come from an objective and transparent understanding of our objectives and our options. Natural gas is an abundant, carbon efficient fuel that gives America a real opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and still provide the energy to maintain a vibrant growing economy. Sufficient natural gas reserves exist beneath U.S. soil to power our country for the next 65 years. Natural gas is a ready substitute for the fuels that we annually spend tens of billions of dollars to import, and thus natural gas serves as an important measure of energy security.

For over 60 years, hydraulic fracturing has been used safely and successfully to extract natural gas from shale. A comprehensive study conducted by EPA in 2004 concluded that the fracking process is safe. Congress however has required that the E.P.A. revisit the fracking issue. The EPA is currently crafting a new study to further understand the relationship between fracking and America’s water sources; results are anticipated to be published near the end of 2012. Many believe this new study will also conclude that hydraulic fracturing is a reasonable, responsible, and effective means of accessing one of North America’s greatest energy resources.

The EPA hearings present an opportunity for the public to understand better the magnificent opportunity that shale gas holds for all of us both economically and environmentally. This will be a time to underscore our commitment to a clean energy economy and to demonstrate that we will base our policies on science, reason, and concern for the well being of all our citizens.

Biased, unsubstantiated information should not determine the fate of hydraulic fracturing, natural gas production and thus the viability of our nation’s energy future. This energy source can heat our homes, power our plants, fuel our transportation, and provide important employment opportunities for many decades to come. The volume or amount of rhetoric is not the criterion that should determine the viability of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas production. Our national well-being is too important for that.

Today's methods make gas drilling a filthy business. You know it’s bad when nearby residents can light the water coming out of their tap on fire.

But that’s just the start of the problems. In the old days, oil companies produced natural gas, which was relatively easy to extract, as a by-product of oil drilling in this country. Today, most of the remaining domestic reserves are so-called “unconventional” deposits trapped in shale, coal & sandstone formations. To free the gas, companies pump chemicals, sand & water into the ground under high pressure to fracture, or frac, the rock formations.

Hydraulic fracturing fluids contain a toxic cocktail of petroleum distillates—benzene, toluene and other carcinogens (the precise recipe is a trade secret). The fractured formations are then "dewatered" to release the gas. In one of the driest regions of the country, groundwater is being polluted, pumped to the surface & dumped into holding ponds to evaporate.

No other industry could get away with this. But in 2005 Congress exempted gas drillers from provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act by passing the “Halliburton loophole,” inserted into the law at the request of a former Halliburton executive, then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

Hydraulic fracturing is not going to be the way we solve our nation’s long term energy need. It’s a dirty Frankenfuel that pollutes the land and water while gushing carbon pollution. The right way to turn is real and serious investments in clean energy.

The innovative use of both hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have expanded and deepened both the geology and geography of U.S. natural gas supply by tapping into unconventional gas deposits previously thought unattainable.

EPA’s study is one important policy step to provide information and data necessary for sound decision-making both by the EPA and Congress on the use of hydraulic fracturing for production of shale gas. Congress and EPA should await the study’s results before rushing into long term decisions about how this technology should be regulated. It is also important to consider all aspects of how best to regulate hydraulic fracturing with the dual goals of protecting groundwater resources while realizing the full potential of this resource “game-changer.”

For instance, since shale formations differ between geographies, state regulatory agencies are perhaps better attuned to the unique features of the shale formations in their respective areas and how best to balance natural gas production with protecting groundwater resources. Applying a uniform or federally regulated “one size fits all” approach to all areas of natural gas shale production in the United States would fail to account for these variations and could actually stifle development of this increasingly important domestic resource.

Additionally, while continued expansion of the technology could spur massive job creation in the U.S., it also presents new opportunities for America's oil and gas producers and service companies abroad. U.S. companies are currently exporting this technology and working with energy firms in China, India and Western Europe to help them realize their potential to reduce energy imports and meet climate goals through their own domestic development of this less carbon-intensive fuel. This also reduces the market power of OPEC and Russia.

Development of domestic, long-term, large natural gas reserves could and should play an important role in the state of a future U.S. economy that has a lower carbon profile and is less dependent on imported forms of energy. U.S. manufacturing and other natural gas-based industries could and should grow again with a comprehensive energy policy and an appropriate regulatory policy on natural gas that is focused on keeping the U.S. globally competitive.

The world is watching how the U.S. approaches production of these new unconventional natural gas reserves. As we await the EPA report, the continued exploration of this technology is prudent to our national interests.

“Fracking” regulation provides EPA with an opportunity for imagination and innovation as well as the application of federalism. But given EPA’s mindset, that -- like Ernest Hemingway’s description of second marriages -- would be a “triumph of hope over experience.” More likely than not we will get a fracking mess.

Shale gas can provide enormous economic and energy benefits to the nation if its potential is not strangled by excessive regulation driven by worse case assumptions. Environmental risks (and yes, there are risks) should be balanced against economic benefits in a way that provides tough but realistic environmental protections without making the development of shale gas reserves uneconomical. Risks have to be managed and balanced; they cannot be eliminated.

Early indications of reaching this ideal situation are not promising. Congress is talking about legislation requiring disclosure of fracking chemicals although EPA doesn’t need additional authority for obtaining necessary information. Between the Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, and Toxic Substances Control Acts, EPA has more than enough regulatory authority.

The Agency seems to be tacking in the direction that goes beyond issues of risk to water supply issues. Based on history, EPA is going down the road that leads to a complex, comprehensive command and control approach. That will raise the cost of producing shale gas and lower its economic benefits, including job creation. Gas is our energy future.

The challenge of providing adequate water supplies to future generations goes well beyond shale gas and will involve technological developments and politically tough decisions concerning ground water management and use. That is an issue that should be dealt with separately. Including it in the shale gas regulatory structure creates the impression of EPA looking for ways to prevent shale gas’ potential from being fully realized. Is this another example of the Obama Administration’s off fossil energy agenda?

The shale gas fields in Pennsylvania and West Virginia are different from those in Texas and the Rockies. Instead of a one size fits all approach, the Agency should develop partnerships with individual states where EPA provides guidelines and technical information and the states do the regulating on the basis of geographic specific factors and conditions. The issues of competing uses for potable water, alternative sources of water, and drinking water quality and contamination are best handled at the state level.

Although the natural gas industry is a mature one, the shale gas part of the industry is not as developed. With time, experience, and investment, the technology and practices necessary to achieve shale gas’ potential will evolve if environmentalists and regulators take a realistic approach to risks and benefits. Maintaining safe drinking water is an imperative but so are cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce oil imports, and drive job creation through increased domestic investment.

While no industrial activity is risk free, there is no compelling evidence that the hydrofacturing taking place in developing Marcellus shale gas has caused any serious problems. The geology in the region offers good protection for ground water.

EPA needs to narrow the focus of its rule making and take advantage of this opportunity to build productive relationships with the states.

With so much talk in Washington these days from policymakers about plans aimed at redirecting our struggling economy and putting Americans back to work, not as much attention has been paid to the incredible economic force that America’s oil and natural gas producers continue to bring to bear in so many regions across the country.

Unfortunately though, some special interests in Washington are working to advance misguided policies on hydraulic fracturing that seek to severely undercut American natural gas and oil producers’ ability to safely deliver the energy resources needed to fuel our economy. Naturally, the less energy produced, the fewer jobs created – and tougher it is to make good on the promise of America’s environmentally responsible, homegrown (and growing) energy potential.

Consider the potential consequences of the FRAC Act, which could strip energy-producing states of their ability to determine the regulatory landscape associated with hydraulic fracturing – a 60-year old technology – already effectively and actively (not “minimally”) regulated by the states – that’s used to enhance energy production in 90 percent of the nation’s new oil and natural gas wells.

While some opponents of responsible American energy production contend that Washington ought to step in and brush aside the authority and expertise of the states in this area, the industry continues to provide the facts, history and data needed to better understand and appreciate the record of achievement to which state officials continue to lay claim after 60 years of successful oversight. This has become such an important policy issue, that the industry has created a coalition – small and large companies, consumers, landowners – to address the very questions asked today by National Journal. You can visit the Energy in Depth coalition’s website at www.energyindepth.org.

In commercial use since 1949, hydraulic fracturing has been – and continues to be – the linchpin to American oil and natural gas production. With surgical-like precision, using high-pressure fluids made up of more than 99.5 percent water and sand, with a small percentage of everyday additives used to kill bacteria and reduce wellbore friction, fracturing stimulates oil and gas production thousands of feet below ground, allowing increased amounts of energy to be produced.

Oil and natural gas well development is tightly regulated by energy-producing states including requirements to protect groundwater. And it’s subject to a host of federal laws and regulations as well. In fact, federal law mandates that fracturing fluids – which as stated, are made up of more than 99.5 percent water and sand – be disclosed at every single well-site. Many states even provide these lists online.

It’s important to point out that some policymakers will claim that hydraulic fracturing was given an “exemption” from the Safe Drinking Water Act in the 2005 Energy Bill. Nothing is further from the truth. Hydraulic fracturing had never in its history been regulated under SDWA. It has always been regulated by the states and the 2005 Energy Bill simply made that clear with the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate?

But is it safe, and what steps do producers take to ensure groundwater protection? The short answer: yes, and many.

Steel pipe is cemented to ensure that fracturing fluids, as well as oil and natural gas and produced water, cannot enter drinking water aquifers. And because of commonsense laws and regulations in place, coupled with the industry’s unwavering commitment to protect the environment, fracturing – which has been safely used more than 1.1 million times nationwide – has never contaminated underground water supplies.

For example, Victor Carrillo, chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission – the state’s chief oil and gas regulatory body – has said that “not a single instance of harm to drinking water was found in over one million hydraulic fracturing operations. Thus, state regulation has proved effective in protecting drinking water from all drilling activities, including hydraulic fracturing.”

He’s absolutely right. And so too are the top EPA officials, and a host of independent experts – including the Ground Water Protection Council – who have confirmed this fact. Again, you can find independent reports from GWPC, EPA and state regulators at the Energy in Depth website www.energyindepth.org.

No evidence directly connects injection of fracking fluid into shale with aquifer contamination. In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a study finding no confirmed instances of drinking water contamination by fracking fluids in the ground.

But, right now, the EPA is conducting another study on hydraulic fracturing. This process should play out with the best scientific input from all stakeholders, including natural gas and oil producers. Congress asked for this study and policymakers should not act until all the facts are gathered and the EPA’s findings are reported.