gas than there would be for fracking, then is it simply a question of a lot more potential fracking that is going togo on? they're talking about the possibility of 100,000 well s ad they suggested there might be 100,000 fracking wells in pennsylvania, and that's got people quite upset. can you put that in perspective of the impacts of historically of conventional natural gas wells and why fracking may be so much more of a concern to people in terms of just land disturbance and industrial activity? >> i think it probably, as you say, has a lot to do with the disturbance, the truck traffic and that kind of thing. when i'm just up in the areas of northern pennsylvania, those are the things i hear the most about, is just the amount of

congestion and hustle bustle and truck twraraffic and that kind thing. i really can't answer much more detail. i don't know how to compare the conventional gas versus the hydrafracked gas and say much more than i said in the talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the pad sizes and what not. >> i want to add to that that we -- some of our resources are using remote sensing techniques to look at the total amount of disturbance associated with construction of pads, pipelines, and roads for wells that are fracked compared to wells that are conventional, shallower production, and i think that is due to be out in the next several months. so i would say to check back and there will be some results on exactly to the question that you asked.

>> as dennis mentioned earlier in his remarks, in areas where we haven't had hardly any hydrocarbon production in the past, sudden activity brand new to a community is a stark change to what they're accustomed to, not just more truck traffic but the whole effect on the community, that many people, you'll find companies come in, they lease up every room of a hotel, so it changes the dynamics of a area. one of the aspects is going to look at socioeconomics, the effects of changing ways in which communities react to the changing ways of the industrial activity. >> my question has to do with the protection of the shallow aquafers. it seems like the well casing and annular seal is one weak link. are there any regulatory requirements with doing well integrity tests prior to doing

the fracking operations? >> there have been spots that have been modified that increase the requirements for the strength of the cement, how long it needs to set before you can do any drilling, and you know, i don't know the specifics of all that, but, yeah, there are definitely a lot of regulations about the cement and the casing. >> thanks. hello, just a quick question. i was wondering what type of focal mechanism orientation or ability to you tend to find in the seismicity of the water, and is there an ability from region to region? >> i'm sorry. could you repeat that? >> i can hear you. >> okay, i'm not able to hear you very well. could you say that again? >> i'm curious about the

variability of the focal mechanism orien takes of the induced seismicity. if there's -- >> there it is. that's why you can't hear me. okay, so is that working? so a good example is that -- >> could you repeat the question? >> your question, if i heard it right, is about the variability of the focal mechanism. >> orientations, the fracture orientations. >> right, so in most -- okay, first of all, the focal mechanism is the ornnitation of the fault and the direction and motion on the fault. and the questions about the consistency about that, so in most cases, we do not have good enough seismic networks around

the induced earthquake activity to be very sure of the ori orientation of the focal mechanism and the variability around a single injection site, but a very good example where we do have that information is in arkansas, and i did point this out on the slide i showed, when you look at this later online, you can go back to it. that fault plain that is on which all of the earthquakes are occurring, is both very well defined by the earthquakes and the focal mechanisms or the sense of motion of all of those earthquakes is very, very consistent. it's a single process, a whole lot of earthquakes triggered with the same type of motion that indicates that the stress field is uniform and it indicates that the injection process has modified the stress state within a larger stress

field. >> right. okay. thank you. >> okay, we're going to halt the formal questions at this point because we're well over the allotted time, but we would be more than happy for people who still have questions to come on up and ask us directly. those you would like to know about. thank you very much for coming. tonight here on c-span3, american history tv looks at the batum of hampton roads, that civil war conflict known as the battle of the monitor and ma merrima merrimack. it is tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span3.

>> april 15th, 1912, nearly 1500 perished on the ship called unsinkable. >> once the lookout bells were sounded, once the lookouts sighting an iceberg ahead, they struck the bells three times, which is a warning, say, that there's some object ahead. doesn't mean dead ahead. means ahead of the ship, and it doesn't say what kind of object. what the lookout did, he went to a telephone nest and called down to the officer of the bridge to tell them what it is that they saw. and when the phone was finally answered, the entire conversation was, what do you see? and the response was, iceberg right ahead, and the response from the officer was, thank you. >> samuel helpern on the truths and myths of that night. this weekend on c-span3.

>> the navy secretary, chief of naval operations and the marine commandant testified on capitol hill last month about the department's budget for next year. among the topics, the push to use renewable fuels, plans to reduce the number of war ships and naval operations in the persian gulf. charl levin chaired this senate services committee here. we want to welcome them to testify on the plans and programs of the department of the navy and our review of the fiscal year 2013 review and budget and overseas contingency operations request. admiral greenert as he makes his

first appearance before the committee as chief of naval operations and we want to wish general amos good health as he recovers from a visit to the flight surgeon. you look terrific, general. and you really do. and we all -- we all know about what you've come through with flying colors and we greet you. we're just delighted you're here and looking so fit. we're grateful to each of you for your service to our nation, and for the valorous and truly professional nature for which you serve and we're grateful to their families knowing the vital role that families play in the success of careers and missions of our armed forces. two recent changes make the defense budget situation challenging for the services in particular. first is the budget control act

which places limitations on funding for national security. and secondly is adapting to its changing role in the new strategic guidance announced by the president last january. each of our services has that challenge. the defense department's most recent defense strategic guidance in january refocuses the u.s. military on the asia pacific and consistent with that strategy, the defense department has been working to realign u.s. military forced in countries like south korea and japan, and also plans to position navy and marine corps forces further to the south in countries like australia, singapore, and possibly others. as we rebalance and realign our presence in the asia pacific, it is important that we not only get strategy right but also get sustainability right. this is particularly true for the marine corps. with respect to the realignment

of the u.s. marines on oakkinao we have advocated changes to the current plan in ways that support the strategic goals of the u.s. military posture in the region while also accounted for the fiscal, political, and diplomatic realities associated with long-term sustainability. last month, the u.s. and japan announced that they intend to amend certain elements of the plan, including the delinking of the movement of marines off okinawa from the progress on the replacement facility, and adjusting the unit composition and a number of marines that will move to guam. as the details are finalized, it is important that any changes be jointly agreed upon and jointly announced with japan with a goal of achieving a more viable and sustainable u.s. presence in japan and on guam. as we discussed the budget

issues here at home, our thoughts are principally focused on places far from here. nearly 20,000 marines are partners with an approximately equal number of afghan security forces in afghanistan, in the effort to bring security and stability to the people of that country. in addition, our navy forces at sea in the central command are joined by another 10,000 sailors on the ground, most supporting our combat forces in afghanistan. we all deeply regret the tragic loss of civilian life in afghanistan, apparently caused by one of our solgers last week. the veginvestigation of that incident needs to go forward expeditiously and tranls parentally with the due process that is also one of the core values we hold dear as americans. we should not lose sight of the fact that our goals remain clear, to train indigenous afghan forces to provide for the

security of the afghan people, and to support them while they get larger and stronger and more capable. the taliban's goals are just as clear. they regularly engage in terrorist acts against civilians, afghan civilians in an attempt to achieve their political aim, and we should not let one tragic incident which violates our laws and values to muddy the difference between the taliban and most of the rest of the world. last year, we saw how naval forces could support national goals on short notice in libya. among those forces that we had one missile launching ships that struck targets, second, military aircraft supporting coalition operations, third, unmanned aerial vehicles providing intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance support. navy and marine corps forces also played a significant role in aiding the japanese tsunami

relief effort. on our visit to japan, the people still stunned were most grateful to the united states for the assistance that we provided. the use and the possible use of our forces overseas makes it even more important that our budget provide for our success and well being. our winces this morning are faced with a number of large challenges that confront the department of the navy and their budget such as balancing modernization needs against the cost of supporting ongoing operations. indeed we face a number of issues that will need our attention as we review the dod tluzation request, making reductions to the ship building plan and retiring ships earlier than planned. the result would be that the fleet will not grow to the previously stated goal of 313 ships but fall from its current level of 288 and only return to the level of 288 at the end of

the year. the navy had made modest progress in increasing the size of the navy fleet from a low of 274 ships in march of 2007, but that progress would be suspended with this budget. another challenge retiring seven cruisers earlier than planned rather than modernizing by two years, although the navy testified just last year that we needed to maintain the original ssb and x schedule to insure we meet our strateging control requirements. other challenges are reducing the strength of the active component, excuse me, of the marine corps from 202,000 beginning this year to 182,000 by the end of fy 16, and modernizing the amphibious

tractor fleet for the programs for the amphibious program model and that would replace the program canceled last year. in this authorization request, we're asked to prevent future counsels to sever programs including the submarine, the arley burke destroyers and the v-22 aircrafts. if we approve these proposals, we will be monitoring these closely to insure that the department actually achieves the proposed savings and gets costs under control in other acquisition programs. the future strength of the navy depends on holding firm on its cost reduction efforts and expanding them across the whole acquisition portfolio. the weapon systems acquisition

reform act of 2009 requires the defense department makes significant changes in the regulations and procedures governing the acquisition system. while the legislation should help correct past problems, i also know that we will succeed only through concerted efforts within the executive branch to implement the legislation and i look forward to seeing how the department of innavy is going to implement that act. the naval aviations force levels are under pressure. the navy is planning to conduct a service life expansion program on some f-15 aircraft already in the inventory, also the navy budget would continue to buy additional aircraft as was planned before but the budget would buy fewer marine corps and navy versions of the f-35 join strike aircraft we had planned last year.

on that point, we saw secretary panetta remove the f-35 b short take off landing variant from a probationary status a year earlier than planned. senator mccain and i questioned the action, particularly since the fixes to the problems that caused secretary gates to put it on probation in the first place had not completed testing. when we asked the secretary about this, the answer was in effect that the f-35 b has made progress in testing and is in no worse shape that the f- -- the other f-35 b variants. performance in the past year. it seems that is too early, too early to declare any victories. i want to commend the secretary for fully funding this year's

ship budget request. it's the first time they have done that in recent history. while our submarine fleet has benefitted from 100% requirements for years and necessarily so, it's noteworthy that the surface fleet will receive similar treatment in the fiscal year 2013 budget. the readiness of the navy's fleet is an essential element to the national security, and i believe that a fully funded maintenance requirement is our best chance of insuring that our fleet reaches its expected service life. and as much of an advance that is and we commend the navy for it, there's a backlog of mant nnls that remains. with a decision to fund it at 94% of the requirement, my understanding is that we now face $160 million backlog for aircraft and a $217 million

backlog for ship maintenance. we'd be interested in hearing from the witnesses how the navy plans to address and to fund those backlogs to mitigate risk across the fleet. final finally, i want to commend you, secretary mabus, for your effort to lead the department in making energy efficiency and self reliance such a priority. you have correctly placed a strong emphasis on an area where as strong as our military forces may be, we remain subject to the tyranny of energy supplies. we thank you for your commitment to a more sustainmeable and stronger navy. senator mccain. >> mr. chairman, i join you in welcoming the witnesses today to discuss the president's budget request for fiscal year 2013 for the department of the navy. i speak for all members of our committee when i praise the men and women who serve in the united states navy and marines for their outstanding and

dedicated service and sacrifice. while recruiting and retention in the navy and marine corps remain strong, we should carefully consider plans for 15,100 fewer active and reserve members of the united states navy and 20,000 fewer marines as the department is currently proposing under its budget plan, covering the next five years. the administration is proposing a reduced defense budget at a time where the challenges to our security are arguably more daunting than at any time in recent history. in particular, the pacific area of command responsibility is predominantly a mare time theater and our presence and power projection will continue to depend on the navy and marine corps. if they remain short of their goal of 315 ships and it

proposes under its current budget request to get seven cruisers earlier than planned, two amphibious lift ships needed by the marine corps, cuts to our naval capabilities without a plan to compensate for them puts our goals in the asia pacific region at greater risk. first on the f-35 joint strike fighter program, about 50% of the work needed to build all 32 jets of early projection aircraft is completed including the cost of design changes needed late in the development, the total cost of finishing lot four is estimated at about $500 million over the target cost. the high lielihood of the concurrency cost that was strongly objected to by this committee and me in particular at the time that it was decided

upon, although stoutly defended by the navy and the marine corps at the time. those costs will continue to grow, now acknowledge bide the head of acquisition in the pentagon as, quote, acquisition malpractice. the high likelihood that these costs will continue to grow, preventing further costs on the f-35 program is absolutely imperative. because of delays in the program, the navy has decided to buy more fa-18 by ex-british for the spare parts and they're invested in refurbished f-16s to fill the gap. they'll be interested again to hear from the witnesses as to how we can make some progress in bringing these costs under

control. the cost of acquisition of uss gerald ford, aircraft carrier has grown over the original estimate by over $1 billion. i repeat, has grown overcost by $1 billion. i would be very curious, mr. secretary, what you have been doing on your watch to try to bring those costs under control. bringing the total cost of the carrier over $12 billion. and at least $500 million, $600 million over the legislative cost cap. we do have a legislative cost cap. and the lukelihood of future growth and the cost to complete construction is high. i expect the navy will soon ask for legislative relief from the cost cap. before i'll support such a request, i need to understand why the navy has been unable to control costs on this program. i'm also reluctant to support additional funting for the second carrier until the navy

and the ship builder get carrier costs under control. there are many other programs that are under stress and duress and are subject to cost overruns and i won't take the time of the committee at this time to go over things like the literal combat ship, the ohio class replacement submarines, et cetera. i would like our witnesses to elaborate on the strategy for modernization of the combat vehicle capabilities including the amphibious vehicle, and the marine personnel carrier. how does the marine corps plan to accomplish all this within current and projected budget constraints in a way that maintains operational capabilities and readiness? secretary mabus, i understand your second highest priority is, quote, treating energy as a trusteejic national security issue even with the real threat

of sequesteration and investment and all that would entail, the navy has pledged $170 million as its slar shaof a $510 million effort to create a commercially viable by ofuel market. we have directed to consume one gig awatt of new energy to power new naval installations across the country. using defense dollars to subsidize new energy technologies is not the navy's responsibility nor is it sufficiently the corps's mission to justify such expenditures. including where you got the authorization to spend this money on energy, finally, we'll consider the three multiyear procurement budgets including the budget submission. they must meet the criteria in

law, including the substantive savings considering 10% in stability and design. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain. mr. secretary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman levin, thank you, member mccain, members of the committee. i want to start by thanking you all for the support that you give to our sailors, marines, civilians, their families in the department of the navy. and insuring that they get what they need to do their mission. the pride that general amos, the commandant of the marine corps and greenert and i take in leading these dedicated sailors, marines, civilians of the department who selflessly serve the united states as exceeded only by the accomplishments of

the brave and completely selfless individuals. whatever is asked of them by the american people through their commander in chief, from afghanistan to libya, from assisting the stricken people of japan to assuring the world has ever known. no one should ever doubt the ability, capability, or the spe superiority of the team. after two long ground wars, it was essential to review the

basic strategic posture. the new guidance under the leadership of the president and the secretary of defense with the full involvement of every secretary and service chief in response to changes in global security. the budget presented to implement the strategy which was also arrived at through full collaboration of all of the services insures that the navy and marine corps will be able to fully execute the strategy while meeting the constraints imposed on the budget control act passed by congress. this new strategy has a focus on the western pacific and arabian gulf region while maintaining our worldwide partnerships and global presence using innovative, low-cost light footprint engagement. it requires a navy corps team that is built for any eve eventuality in land, in the air, in the oceans or the