Gas drilling ban in national forest sparks debate

By Laurence Hammack

A proposal to ban a controversial method of drilling for natural gas in the George Washington National Forest struck a nerve Friday on Capitol Hill.

Fears that the ban could stifle domestic oil and gas development -- not just on the George Washington National Forest's 1.1 million acres, but on federal lands across the country -- were raised during a congressional hearing.

"While our Forest Service is working to close our land to all drilling, we are importing natural gas from Norway to meet the domestic needs of Virginia and Maryland," said Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., chairman of a subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee, which held a joint hearing with a panel from the Agriculture Committee.

At issue is a moratorium on horizontal drilling that was one of many proposals in a 900-page plan for managing the George Washington National Forest over the next 15 years, which the Forest Service released in May.

But as evidenced by Friday's hearing, it didn't take long for the proposal to become part of a national debate over hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," which entails blasting millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals underground to release natural gas from shale deposits.

Although the process has not been used in Virginia, it has generated concerns elsewhere about water contamination and other environmental damage.

Should it continue unabated, fracking "has the potential to turn stretches of forest into lifeless dunes," said U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.

Public sentiment was one of the reasons the forest service suggested banning horizontal drilling, the practice of digging a shaft down to the formation to be mined, then going sideways to extract the gas.

Although some level of fracking is involved in traditional vertical drilling, the proposed ban would prohibit the more extensive fracking that accompanies horizontal drilling.

With gas developers eager to tap the Marcellus Shale Formation, a huge natural gas deposit that extends below the George Washington National Forest, five cities and counties in the Shenandoah Valley have gone on record opposing or raising concerns about fracking.

U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke County, whose district includes the national forest, said there should be a way to promote natural gas -- which leaves a lighter carbon footprint than some other energy sources -- while also addressing issues raised by opponents.

"Why a 15-year ban as opposed to taking other moves that would assure my constituents this is being done in a safe manner?" asked Goodlatte, vice chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

In testimony Friday, Forest Service officials said the George Washington proposal is only for that forest, and they have no plans to ban horizontal drilling on other federal property.

They also stressed that the proposed ban is just one of seven alternatives under consideration. The forest service will take public comment before making a decision by year's end.

About 12,000 acres of the forest are currently available for oil and gas development through vertical drilling.

With testimony from government officials, environmental groups and the gas industry, Friday's hearing offered mixed reviews of the risks posed by fracking.

"We believe, based upon the track record so far, that it is safe," said Bob Abbey, director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. "But that does not take away the need to be diligent."

Maureen Masten, Virginia's deputy director of natural resources, went a step further, saying that there was no evidence of environmental harm from fracking and that a ban would hurt the state's efforts to create jobs and develop all available energy sources.