Maybe it does matter whom we elect as President. The last administration inserted the provision known as "the Halliburton Loophole" into the 2005 Energy Policy Act; the current administration is trying to assess the damage.
The so-called Halliburton Loophole allows natural gas companies to keep secret the chemicals they use to extract natural gas through the process known as "fracking." I didn't touch on the precise nature of the dangers of this practice when I talked about Gasland, the HBO documentary that told a harrowing story of homeowners who allowed fracking on their property and now must cope with the contamination of their water supplies. They don't know what's in their water nowadays, but they know it isn't good for them: they've suffered higher rates of cancer and other illnesses, and in a couple of cases they demonstrated on camera that the water coming out of their faucets is flammable. Actor Mark Rufalo wrote a decent overview of the problem; it's a more concise way to get the same information, though Gasland is well worth watching if you can.
The E.P.A., in response to a Congressional mandate in 2009 (I guess it matters whom we elect to Congress, too), started an investigation into the hazards posed by fracking by asking natural gas companies for information. It seems Halliburton dragged its feet, prompting the E.P.A. to drop a subpoena on the company. Halliburton, of course, protests that it was cooperating to the best of its ability.
The New York Times article on the subpoena mentions that the Halliburton Loophole was justified by a 2004 federal study that concluded the process did not pose a significant health risk. You can read or download the report from the E.P.A. Web site; it's in PDF format. (I mention this for completeness' sake: I haven't read it, nor is it likely I will, as it almost certainly will not be intelligible to me.) This study has been criticized by those outside the fracking industry for being poorly designed.
Interestingly, HeatingOil.com reported on 27 October 2010 that Halliburton would disclose its fracking chemicals on "a new company website on November 15." The news about the E.P.A. subpoena broke on 9 November 2010. Either the E.P.A. wasn't aware of Halliburton's plan to disclose, or the agency doesn't consider that plan a sufficient response to its original request for information. The E.P.A.'s cover letter for the subpoena only says, "EPA believes that Halliburton's response is inadequate and inconsistent with the cooperation shown to date by the other eight companies." (The E.P.A. asked nine fracking companies, including Halliburton, for voluntary information submissions on 9 September 2010.)
Having trawled the Web for a bit on this topic, I've seen one industry representative decry the E.P.A.'s new study as unnecessary due to its 2004 study. (Naturally, I didn't take note of the page so I can't refer you to it. Bad Stranger!) Moreover, this same representative claimed that fracking is completely safe as long as wells are properly sealed, a contention that is in keeping with Halliburton's own public proclamation. If aquifers are being contaminated with fracking chemicals, the representative said, it is the result of shoddy well construction, not of any intrinsic danger of fracking. Further to this point, here's a passage from Halliburton's aforementioned hydraulic fracturing document:
During the drilling of a well to produce hydrocarbons, (Figure 1) all the formations through which the wellbore passes are protected by steel casing surrounded by cement. Extensive research and development have gone into developing cement blends and procedures that will form a tight, permanent seal both to the casing and to the formation. This casing and cement stabilize and protect the wellbore and, just as importantly, prevent fluids from moving between formation layers.Cement. Hmm. Something familiar about that.
The New York Times is reporting that the presidential commission investigating the [Deepwater Horizon] incident has determined that Halliburton knew the cement mixture it provided was not up to the job.Bad cement to BP. Somehow, it doesn't seem like such a leap to imagine bad cement -- bad Halliburton cement, mind you -- being supplied for other uses, too.
UPDATE: Here is my reaction to Halliburton's new hydraulic fracturing (fracking) Web site.
No comments:
Post a Comment