FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 9, 2010
Eight of Nine U.S. Companies Agree to Work with EPA Regarding ChemicalsUsed in Natural Gas ExtractionEPA conducting congressionally mandated study to examine the impact of the hydraulic fracturing process on drinking water quality; Halliburton subpoenaed after failing to meet EPA’s voluntary requests for information.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) todayannounced that eight out of the nine hydraulic fracturing companies thatreceived voluntary information requests in September have agreed tosubmit timely and complete information to help the agency conduct itsstudy on hydraulic fracturing. However, the ninth company, Halliburton,has failed to provide EPA the information necessary to move forward withthis important study. As a result, and as part of the agency’s effort tomove forward as quickly as possible, today EPA issued a subpoena to thecompany requiring submission of the requested information that has yetto be provided.
EPA’s congressionally mandated hydraulic fracturing study will look atthe potential adverse impact of the practice on drinking water andpublic health. The agency is under a tight deadline to provide initialresults by the end of 2012 and the thoroughness of the study depends ontimely access to detailed information about the methods used forfracturing.
EPA announced in March that it would conduct this study andsolicit input from the public through a series of public meetings inmajor oil and gas production regions. The agency has completed thepublic meetings and thousands of Americans from across the countryshared their views on the study and expressed full support for thiseffort.
On September 9, EPA reached out to nine leading national and regionalhydraulic fracturing service providers – BJ Services, CompleteProduction Services, Halliburton, Key Energy Services, Patterson-UTI,RPC, Inc., Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, and Weatherford –seeking information on the chemical composition of fluids used in thehydraulic fracturing process, data on the impacts of the chemicals onhuman health and the environment, standard operating procedures at theirhydraulic fracturing sites and the locations of sites where fracturinghas been conducted. Except for Halliburton, the companies have either fully complied withthe September 9 request or made unconditional commitments to provide allthe information on an expeditious schedule.
More information on the subpoena and mandatory request for informationon Halliburton’s hydraulic fracturing operations: http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Had a very nice visit with Reg 6 and Fed EPA this afternoon. Our future Superfund site 300 feet outside our back door is one of the sites under consideation for this study.
ReplyDeleteI'm hearing that Halliburton folded upon reciept of the subpoena, but not verified. I'm not sure what grounds they can stand on after all the other major players submitted their ultra secret chemicals where they could still hold out. That said, Range Resources touts that they fully disclosed their frac fluids long before even being asked-but retain a certain list of them as being 'proprietaty'.
I'm not sure what the hold up is on any of it. If the companies have all these exemptions, and continue to claim that not one single case of ground water contamination exists, then why not share the list of frac fluids so we can test for the presence of them in our drinking water? If they so believe there are no cases, then what's the problem?