Great post on The Hill’s Congress Blog by API’s Emily Kennedy, bringing attention to another vast U.S. resource: oil shale.

This is oil derived from sedimentary rock that contains a solid material (kerogen) that converts to liquid oil when heated. We’ve got enormous deposits in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, with estimates that up to 800 billion barrels could be recoverable – almost three times Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves. Kennedy:

“The president is right: an all-of-the-above approach is the best path for securing America’s energy future. In oil shale, the United States has another vast energy resource that can’t be dismissed – one that would be best developed by industry and the marketplace, guided by clear policies and a stable regulatory regime.”

Let's play multiple choice. In the typical fluid mix used to produce natural gas from shale during hydraulic fracturing, the percentage of water/sand/chemicals is:

A) 70 percent water, 20 percent sand, 10 percent chemicals.

B) 80 percent water, 15 percent sand, 5 percent chemicals.

C) 90 percent water, 9.5 percent sand, 0.5 percent chemicals.

The answer is ... "C." Surprised? Lots of folks are, given the number of inaccuracies about hydraulic fracturing that are circulating. Fracturing fluid is 99.5 percent water and sand - the sand being used to prop open tiny fissures in the shale to release the natural gas. Only one-half of 1 percent of the mix is chemicals.

Ready for another surprise? Chemicals in the typical fracking mix (the 0.5 percent) are additives found in common household items... more »

PoliticoPro reports that a New York state advisory panel on hydraulic fracturing is taking flak from some environmentalists despite the fact a majority of the committee's members are ... environmentalists.

There's a simple explanation: Some of these folks just aren't all that interested in helping a process that will bring more natural gas - clean-burning, abundant, affordable - to U.S. Here's what David Braun, co-founder of United for Action, a New York-based anti-fracking group, told PoliticoPro:

"The environmental groups that are involved are too interested in regulating rather than serving their general purpose, which is to defend our resources, defend the people and to not push these sorts of things through."

Braun refers to hydraulic fracturing, the drilling technology that's revolut... more »

Arthur Brisbane, The New York Times' public editor, is critical of the newspaper's recent coverage of the economic boom associated with natural gas development in Pennsylvania, Texas and other states. You can read his piece here.

Equally interesting is reaction to Brisbane's comments from the journalists who wrote and edited the story in question - basically telling Brisbane to take a hike. "We would not change a word," Richard L. Berke, the newspaper's national editor, is quoted as saying. No question, an ombudsman often travels a lonely road.

Others should decide for themselves whether The Times practiced good journalism. Brisbane has his doubts and lays out his case, starting with the article's use of loaded words like "Enron," "Ponzi schemes" and "dot-coms" to convey alarm about natura... more »

With all due respect to Tulsa World columnist Mike Jones - who should know better being from oil and natural gas country - his Sunday piece wrongly depicts the two sides in the public debate over hydraulic fracturing. Jones wrote:

"Stopping hydraulic fracturing in gas wells altogether or allowing unlimited and unregulated fracking are the two sides of a controversial issue that we are hearing most these days."

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. This is a contest between those who're opposed to fracking - and most likely to abundant, affordable natural gas as well - and those who support effectively regulated, responsible development of a key American resource.

Industry is demonstrating its commitment to sensible state and local regulation wherever hydraulic fracturing is under way. Here's... more »