Today there is a common misconception stating sage grouse are at a dangerous population and should be placed on the Endangered Species List. I don’t think it’s a secret that their numbers are down from what they were twenty, or thirty years ago.  It’s also no secret everyone has a explanation why their numbers are down. Theories range from over grazing, predators, hunting, drought, and even energy development. Many speculate with the numbers dropping we will one day see a massive change in the western states they inhabit. It is also said we will never see them like  they were  so many years ago.

Late one September evening I received a call from my father asking if I wanted to get together the next morning to run out for a quick bird  hunt before I had to head into work, which I agreed to. The next morning I loaded the dogs and headed over to pick him up around day break. The drive to the area we wanted to hunt took about a half an hour. Along the way my father told a few stories about hunting birds which took place in 60′s, 70′s, and 80′s, most I had heard but a few I were new to me. One thing they all had in common was how many birds they saw and how they seemed to be very plentiful then. To be honest it set the presentence of “The good old days” in my mind.

Soon we found ourselves  turning of the pavement to hear the sound of the tires hitting the gravel, only to see a mail box about three quarters of a mile down the road. I pointed it out and as this is where we needed to turn to get to the ranchers place. Half way down the drive way we were greeted by and entourage of cow dogs, not one looking alike. When we pulled up to the house the sound of a wooden screen door slamming rang out followed by a stout old man hobbling down the stairs. “Lee” I called out. “Last I knew that was me. You must be Brandon and Larry.” Hand shakes where exchanged and a little small talk. After a bit I could hear my dogs wrestling in their kennels and could relate to their shortage of patience while listening a conversation only two older men could have. I learned about the economy for the last 40 years, old trucks  and how much power they had, harvests and weather for every decade, and even got a little education of when Regan was president.

Being very confident the two could talk well into the day I gracefully pulled out the map and asked “Where do you think we should go to find some birds? We’re looking for huns, sharptail, or sage hens”. “Sage hens, haven’t seen them for a while. Only a few here and there.” His weathered hands, traced roads from the house to different areas where we might see some birds. One thing stood out, which caused me to interrupt him. “Alfalfa field, can we hunt there”? “Sure, it’s all yours.” Again handshakes were in order and we were on our way.

Upon arriving, the field proved to be enough for us to handle for the whole day, so we had to figure where our best chance to encounter birds would be. Both of us agreed the far west corner looked the best. We drove in as far as we could then unloaded the dogs. I remarked how nice it was to see my young dog having so much fun and enjoying herself, and how it was starting to heat up. The last quarter mile I could feel the sun starting to cut on my arms a little, but It all went away when I called out “Point’, which meant one of the dogs found a bird. I distinctly remember my father saying “Which dog are you talking about” as all three dogs were pointing in different directions. Just as I passed the first dog, one sage grouse rose, followed by another, and then another, and then my mouth dropped. We literally had birds all around us. I’m not brave enough to spit out a number for fear of the wrath from the unbelievers. On the walk back one of my fathers remarks stuck with me. “I haven’t seen anything like that since the 70′s”.

Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer is siding with the oil and gas industry in its fight against drilling regulations that some would say could devastate Montana’s economy.  The Bureau of Land Management, a bureaucratic subsidiary of the U S Department of the Interior, is eying new regulations for hydraulic fracturing on all federal lands.

Fracturing is the process of pushing a chemical mixture thousands of feet below the earth’s surface to release oil and gas.  Most of the chemical compound returns to the surface, along with the fossil fuels.  The Department of the Interior claims national uniform standards are necessary for safety’s sake, but Schweitzer contends that the states should monitor the activity, saying the federal rules are redundant, onerous, and burdensome.

Dave Galt, executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, Inc., a trade non profit that represents oil and natural gas producers, said the new rules are designed to regulate oil and gas companies out of business.

Carl Graham, president of the Bozeman based Montana Policy Institute, a free market think tank, said the anti fracking push is simply an effort by environmental radicals to cut off access to cheap energy.  “More than 99 percent of the fluid used is water and sand,” Graham said of the fracking fluid.  Graham is also concerned with the economic slowdown the state would experience, if federal regulations scare off drilling companies.

Environmental groups supporting the federal proposal include Sierra Club, Northern Plains Resource Council, and Montana Environmental Information Center.

Tom Doll, Wyoming’s top oil and gas regulator’s resignation comes within a week of his remarks that Pavillion’s “greed” was fueling residents to demand a new water distribution system in light of the alleged groundwater contamination near the town due to hydraulic fracturing.  A spokesman from the governor’s office declined to say that the resignation was prompted by Doll’s earlier comments, but did acknowledge that it was “in the best interests of the state”.  Doll’s resignation is effective July 3^rd.

Doll’s comments were delivered to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission on June 5^th in Vancouver, British Columbia during a discussion on Pavillion’s groundwater contamination.  Doll contended that the rural community’s demand for a $3 million water distribution system in response to the state’s proposed $750,000 water cisterns proposal was predicated upon “greed”.  In tandem with the comments on Pavillion residents behavior, Doll also criticized the Environmental Protection Agency’s December 2011 draft report which linked the water contamination in Pavillion to hydraulic fracking. It’s Doll’s belief that the EPA’s investigation was flawed and inept; that no scientific basis exists to draw the conclusion that Pavillion’s tainted water was due to fracking.

Well, not being a scientist I have to base my opinions on information I get from trusted sources, as do most of fracking’s detractors. And based on that information my conclusion is that, just like the Keystone pipeline opposition isn’t about pipelines, coal dust alarmism isn’t about coal dust, and megaload obstructionism isn’t about megaloads; most of the fuss about fracking has little to do with the actual process and more to do with getting rid of fossil fuels.

Let’s start with a simple, verifiable fact: In its 60-plus-year history, there has been no generally accepted peer-reviewed scientific study demonstrating negative impacts of fracking on water supplies. That’s zero, zip, nada. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson — hardly a fossil fuel advocate — told Congress just last year that there have been “no proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water.”

Self-serving studies

Sure, there are plenty of studies “proving” that fracking is either essential to mankind or, alternatively, its inevitable downfall. Most of these tend to be a tad self-serving. As the old proverb says, a lie will go ’round the world while the truth pulls its boots on.

But what have those who are actually responsible for public safety said about fracking? Dimock, Penn., and Pavillion, Wyo., have been under the fracking microscope for years and are good indicators.

Residents in Dimock reported dirty water that was famously ignitable at times. But both state regulators and the EPA said claims relating those problems to fracking were unfounded, and the water posed “no immediate health concerns.”

My humble abode is also over an aquifer that gets cloudy as melted snow enters the sandstone structure. It looks awful but is perfectly drinkable. We deal with it. And I can remember stories as a kid in northeast Montana of burning stock ponds as naturally occurring methane bubbled to the surface. It should come as no shock that methane gets into water wells in areas where there are also gas wells. That’s where the gas is. Relating the two is a common but dangerous trick that tries to confuse coincidence and causation. It’s just like my being cranky on days that end in “Y” doesn’t necessarily mean the letter “Y” makes me cranky.

In the Wyoming case, the EPA came out with a 121-page draft report claiming that fracking contaminated ground water. But the report has not yet been peer reviewed and appears to leave some significant questions. It tested wells where hydrocarbons were already present, and that were far deeper than drinking water wells. Potential contamination could have come from “legacy pits,” or even the testing process itself. And it ignored the fact that organic chemicals were present in local water supplies long before fracking was employed. In short, the jury is still out on this one.

A final report on fracking’s impact on drinking water is due later this year. But it’s likely to be anticlimactic. Fracking solutions are typically over 99 percent water and sand. If you’re worried about the remaining 1 percent, you can look up individual well ingredients yourself at fracfocus.org.

Fossil fuels foes

So why all the fuss if the data is not all in, and what data there is proves no harm? It’s a fuss because for the zealots, this argument is about fossil fuels and not fracking. Just like the Keystone pipeline, coal dust, megaloads, and so many other battles, this is about shutting down the fossil fuel industry, and facts are the first casualty in what is essentially a highly coordinated, well-financed public relations campaign.

It’s also counterproductive. Cleaner, cheaper natural gas is rapidly replacing coal in the nation’s energy grid, already accounting for about 25 percent of power production. That would not be possible without fracking. If you care about global warming and affordable electricity, you should be a fracking fan.

And finally, fracking is good for Montana. It brings in jobs, prosperity, and tax revenues. The economic benefits are measurable and immediate. And the smiling faces of mothers and fathers in Eastern Montana watching their kids put on their boots and go to high paying jobs close to home are a welcome change.

*SOURCE:  Guest Opinion www.billingsgazette.com April 14,2012, Carl Graham is CEO of Montana Policy Institute, a nonprofit policy research center in Bozeman