Just shortly before Christmas, the op-ed section of this fine newspaper was used to perpetuate a message of fear and to spread half-truths regarding a real opportunity for Maryland. Del. Heather Mizeur, our esteemed colleague from Montgomery County, implied, as her central thesis, that if Maryland does not follow New York's lead and pass a "moratorium" on a certain technique for natural gas drilling in the state, then the Chesapeake Bay would likely be set ablaze.
Putting a moratorium on natural gas drilling for fear that some may eventually find its way into the Chesapeake Bay would be akin to eliminating Maryland's burgeoning bio-tech industry as a way to prevent bio-terrorism.
The Marcellus Shale rests under our homes, our family's homes, and the homes of our constituents. It is not present in any other part of Maryland and is only found in Garrett and Allegany counties. Natural gas has been drilled in Garrett County since the 1950s. Though hydraulic fracturing technology has not yet been used, other more traditional methods of natural gas extraction have, to our knowledge, not caused any environmental damage. Further exploration into the Marcellus Shale could have a positive impact on our local economy by providing much needed jobs and added revenue.
For example, many of our local farmers are beginning to find they can no longer make a living selling their crops. They are often left with two options. They could either sell their land to developers, or just "keep on keeping on" and hope for the best. Yet, with increased governmental regulations and interference, these desperate farmers may never see that brighter day for which they hope.
A report released by the U.S. Department of Energy asserts that the Marcellus Shale "is the most expansive shale gas play" in the nation. It covers 95,000 square miles across six northeastern states. Within this shale formation, there is an estimated 262 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. To give you a basis of comparison, according to Department of Energy's figures, the United States consumed 22 to 23 trillion cubic feet annually between 2004 and 2009.
Natural gas must be a greater part of Maryland's energy portfolio now. As recently as 2008, the Maryland Energy Administration warned of "summer time electricity shortages as early as 2011." The administration further stated in its 2008 report, "[t]o keep the lights on, Maryland needs to invest in new generation" of electricity. With that in mind, the O'Malley administration had successfully marketed the mountainsides of Western Maryland as potential sites for wind turbines. The first of these generation sites was erected in 2010. Each wind generator has approximately a twenty year life span before it must be replaced.
Knowing this, we introduced legislation for consideration to require that certain sureties were in place to make sure that these turbines would be removed when no longer needed. Unfortunately, it was conveyed quite clearly that no impediments were to be placed before this technology. Yet, here we are less than a year later, debating whether to totally preclude another alternative energy source from operating in Maryland.
Furthermore, according to the energy administration's 2010 Maryland Energy Outlook, Maryland's citizens pay the 12th highest rate for the natural gas that they consume. This, the MEA attributes to not only the "global market," which drives the cost up or down in response to "international developments," but also because all of Maryland's natural gas is shipped into the state via costly pipelines.
Unfortunately, Maryland is not unique in its importation of natural gas. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, only 84 percent of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. is produced in the U.S. Importing natural gas from foreign sources while sitting on one of the largest supplies of the resource is akin to using only money acquired from a loan shark to make day-to-day purchases while you have a million dollars sitting in your savings account.
Our colleague, nonetheless, states that she has no qualms with natural gas in the abstract, only within the context of this particular situation. To supplement her position, she employed exaggeration in explaining the extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing or "fracking." According to the U.S. Department of Energy's April 2009 report entitled "Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer," water and sand make up over 98 percent of the fracturing fluid used to extract natural gas. Also, in Maryland the drill sites will be encased with cement and other materials to minimize the risk of escaping gas. The thousands of feet of rock and the hard shale itself also act as a buffer to minimize this risk. Further, shale gas extraction has developed to the point that horizontal wells can be drilled into the shale formation and numerous wells can be drilled from one well site. This minimizes the overall surface footprint needed for gas exploration.
Maryland already has set a standard in its mining laws. We have increasingly stringent standards, especially when compared to our neighbors in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Knowing of this potential energy source for Maryland, we have been in constant contact with the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE), which has shared with us their thoughts on natural gas drilling and its relation to environmental protection. Through our conversations, it is apparent that Marcellus Shale exploration can be done while still protecting the environment.
Though this technology is still developing on a daily basis, such fear and misinformation expressed by our colleague does nothing to further this developing resource for Maryland. It is a disservice to our constituents and our local economies. Yet, even more dangerously, the half-truths spread nationally ensure that we will continue to rely on foreign sources of yet another energy commodity.
Sen. George C. Edwards and Del. Wendell R. Beitzel, Annapolis
The writers represent the 1st District.