Clifford, we are getting a bit off subject, but compared to alternative projections for U.S. energy supply-demand the EIA has one of the most sophisticated models (NEMS) and access to large data bases compared to other organizations. Are their projections 100% accurate, no, none are, but they are generally more accurate, unbiased, and consistent than other sources (BP, IEA, etc.). The EIA also continuously updates/corrects their data monthly. As far as the EPA reference, it is an example of how the EPA addresses/regulates water issues via alternative non-CWA exemptions. Also, if you research States’ Environmental Agencies you will find they have greater flexibility to regulate/address all potential environmental issues relative to hydraulic fracturing. You either trust State and Federal Agencies to address significant concerns or not.
Back on the subject, it appears you may support the Iranian Nuclear Deal as written since you apparently believe that further restricting U.S. domestic oil production will somehow reduce U.S. Consumer demand. Unfortunately, history and market fundamentals do not support this belief or political position, since without U.S. domestic production (i.e. continued world oil oversupply and drop in market WTI prices into the $30/Bbl. range possibly caused by the Iranian nuclear deal) imports from countries outside North America are going to increase. Who benefits? Not the global environment, not the U.S. economy or its Energy Security. OPEC & Russia will of course likely benefit. I hope you do not anticipate that implementing the nuclear agreement will restore Iranian crude oil imports, which have been blocked since 1980.
Anyway, time to move on Clifford. I have enjoyed the debate and respect you views. I look forward to further debate-exchanges with my next TEC article next month on the impacts of U.S. oil exports on U.S. Energy Security.