It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Haliburton Subpoenaed by EPA For Fracking Fluids

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 01:27 PM
Well I was surprised to see this one slip by ATS, but I watched 60 minutes this wknd and thought this story was worthy of a thread.
There is a new energy boom happening in our country and it is natural gas pockets that are literally twice as big as Saudi's oil supplies. Sounds promising, abundant, cheaper than oil, burns only half the emissions and creates new jobs. The problem lies in the technique known as fracking.
The gas is tied up in solid shale in tiny pockets and the fracking is a technique where water and chemicals are sent through the bedrock, splitting or "fragmenting" it to release the gas. The problem is what chemicals are used and where could they wind up. Louisiana, my home town, is booming right now and of course that is where one of the first related tragedies have occurred. Some of those chemicals got into a creek and killed several cattle.

In Louisiana, also last year, 16 cattle died after “apparently drinking from mysterious fluid adjacent to a natural gas drilling rig,” according to the Shreveport Times. In 2008, in Hill County, Texas, three landowners found their pristine drinking water wells polluted with sulfates and toluene—a gasoline additive and solvent toxic to humans and animals. All three properties are adjacent to fracking wells, reports the Fort Worth Weekly.

The potential for harm from fracking is not yet known. The concern is that frack water, polluted with toxins, is left underground and could over the years rise through strata to contaminate groundwater. The problem, environmental advocates say, is that neither industry nor government has done any long-term studies. What is known is that aquifers once polluted are nearly impossible to clean up.

Other worries center around the millions of gallons of flowback water that do return to the surface at each well, which must be treated as hazardous waste because it contains toxic fracking chemicals, plus toxins leached from bedrock such as benzene and radioactive materials. Open pits, used to store wastewater, can leak into groundwater and also cause air pollution. Toxic wastewater either must be trucked to already overtaxed waste treatment plants for cleanup, or injected back underground.

This article also tells of other related incidents in Virginia, Texas and Georgia. These people are fools to think this stuff won't reach water supplies. You know water is the most powerful force on the planet.

Now, enter Haliburton, the poster child of stringent testing for safety and never putting profits before people.

The EPA requires all chemicals to be identified and disclosed to the industries using them and the public that lives in the areas. Well, all the companies comply EXCEPT Haliburton, who refuse to reveal what chemicals they are using, much less the potential effect, wtf?! So we have another case of Haliburton bypassing regulations and justifying it by jobs and growth. I don't care how much money and energy can be extracted from this industry, if it can contaminate water supplies and is continued to be so widely practiced, well I have a problem with it.
So the Epa has subpoenaed Haliburton in an effort to get them to disclose their chemicals used in fracking and any studies involving their safety, or lack of. Again it is an inefficient use of CONCRETE encasing by Haliburton,set up to prevent any leakage in the ground around the drill pathway. Epic fail, again!

(Reuters) - The Environmental Protection Agency said on Tuesday it has issued a subpoena to Halliburton, demanding information about chemicals it uses in a natural gas drilling technique called "fracking."

In September, the EPA had asked nine companies that practice hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to reveal the mix of chemicals they use in the practice which is opposed by environmental groups worried about its effect on drinking water.

All but Halliburton provided the necessary information, the EPA said. Shale gas stirs energy hopes, environment concerns

The EPA says it needs the data on fracking fluids to complete its comprehensive study of the technique. During fracking, companies inject millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals as far as two miles underground to break open fissures in the gas-bearing shale.

Here is the bit on 60 minutes:

Vids explaining the fracking procedures:

Fracking Procedures

Here is a documentary on the situation that shows people's water being flammable, as does the 60 minutes piece. It's called Gasland:

I am so tired of companies putting our safety in the back seat and really tired of the name Haliburton coming up.
Wouldn't you think these guys would learn? Oh yea and it was Dick Cheney that ordered the hush on disclosing the chemicals!
I hope justice is served and changes are made to make this boom more safe.

The company also has faced renewed criticism over a provision in the 2005 energy law that prevents the EPA from regulating fracking. The exemption is commonly called the "Halliburton loophole," in reference to the company's pioneering role in fracking. An energy task force convened by former Vice President Dick Cheney, a onetime Halliburton CEO, had urged the EPA exemption.


edit on 16-11-2010 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 03:17 PM
They are using that hydraulic fracturing to break the shale in the ground under Pennsylvania to get to the natural gas.

It's already destroyed peoples water supplies and recently....the Susquehanna River is bubbling severely from the gas coming up underneath the river into it. Find "Sugar Run" along the Susquehanna and float down it on a kayak to see it. I wouldn't smoke a cigarette while you do so.

There WILL be explosions from that gas coming up in the mountains of Pennsylvania and pocketing in the prediction is January 15th-ish there will be a major explosion-fire in Pennsylvania's northeastern counties. Homes will explode when their furnaces ignite the natural gas coming into the homes thru the ground-water wells. MANY HOMES.

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by Pervius

I hear ya Pervius, this sounds like a catastrophic potentially perennial unfolding that I would not want to live around, or see cause harm to people at all. And Haliburton's exemption? Geez!
Man I hope there aren't any explosions, but I fear the worst in this one.

Thank you for the reply,

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 06:59 PM
Wow, this one slipped off the board in record time.
Don't mind the "bump" here.
I will add more as this story continues...

edit on 16-11-2010 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 09:43 PM
Found a little more information including Haliburton's 9 page letter to the EPA. It appears the ingredients/chemicals are being withheld because of trade secrets liabilities, which I understand the nature of, but when some or many people stand to be hurt from these decisions, well at least make the companies register the chemicals through a court with some type of "sealed" agreement. That way the ingredients are at least known by someone outside of the companies prime interests.

According to the EPA, eight of the companies----BJ Services, Complete Production Services, Key Energy Services, Patterson-UTI, RPC Inc., Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, and Weatherford---complied with the information request or made "unconditional commitments to provide all the information on an expeditious schedule". Only Halliburton failed to provide the EPA with the information it requested.

"As part of the agency's effort to move forward as quickly as possible, today EPA issued a subpoena to the company requiring submission of the requested information that has yet to be provided," the agency said in statement.

"We are disappointed by the EPA's decision today," Halliburton spokesperson Teresa Wong said in a statement. "Halliburton has been working in good faith in an effort to respond to EPA's September 2010 request for information on our hydraulic fracturing operations over a five-year period. "
Wong said the EPA request would have potentially required Halliburton to prepare approximately 50,000 spreadsheets, and that Halliburton representatives have met with EPA personnel to help try to narrow the focus of their "unreasonable demands".

Halliburton has worked hard to keep the contents of its fracking fluids secret, but the campaign has become more difficult as environmental advocates and researchers push for full disclosure. But in Pennsylvania, a state that is undergoing a natural gas drilling boom in the Marcellus Shale rock formation, regulators appear willing to accept Halliburton's argument that it should be allowed to keep details about its chemicals secret in order to maintain its competitive advantage.
Fracking shoots millions of gallons of water mixed with chemicals underground at high pressures to break rock and release natural gas. The process is currently exempt from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act as a result of assurances by the Bush-era EPA that fracking posed no harm to water supplies. In October 2009, after receiving reports of contamination near fracking sites and complaints that the agency's position was based on outdated and incomplete information, Congress ordered the EPA to conduct a comprehensive study of the technique.

Every company I have ever worked for had strict policies regarding MSDS and I would think for an industry whose procedures are to shoot millions of gallons of chemical laden water through the ground.
This just seems like the classic regulation avoidance game and while I am for less govmnt over all, there are certain areas I think require strict and non "conflict of interest" type oversight. See what happens when we want to get rid of the EPA as many do(Texas). Is there any common sense in these decisions or is it "let's just do it and deal with any problems later?" Profits before people

MSDS forms contain general information about potentially hazardous substances in the workplace, including appropriate handling protocol and the possible risks of exposure. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration mandates that employers make these documents available to their employees.
But MSDSs exist only for substances that are known to the public and have been tested to determine their toxicity. If a company claims that a chemical or some other material is a trade secret, it can withhold the name and the "specific identification" of the chemical as long as the chemical's general effects are listed on the MSDS, according to an OSHA spokeswoman

Haliburton's Letter To EPA

edit on 16-11-2010 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:21 AM
Where's Erin Brockovich on this one? She went after PG&E and won that case. (Also for groundwater contamination, in case you never saw the movie about it.)

Haliburton is one of those companies that really needs to be nailed hard and held accountable for the crap they pull. (Money isn't the end-all or be-all, in some ways we still need to show the world that we can still do some things better than China. Not poisoning people and the environment by taking regulation seriously and with no exceptions is one of them.)

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 01:44 PM
Thankd for the reply pauljs75 and I agree

Pittsburgh has voted to restrict gas drilling and Colorado and New York are considering the same thing.

Citing health and environmental concerns, the Pittsburgh, Pa., city council voted unanimously Tuesday to ban natural gas drilling within the city limits. It is the first such ban in a Pennsylvania city.

The 9-0 vote received a standing ovation

The Pittsburgh bill was drafted by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group.

"Commercial extraction of natural gas in the urban environment of Pittsburgh poses significant threat to the health, safety and welfare of residents and neighborhoods within the city," the ordinance said. "[Drilling] allows the deposition of toxins into the air, soil, water, environment and the bodies of residents."

Here is a scientific perspective of the situation claiming that methane in the water systems is a result of gas drilling.

In its Sunday, Nov. 6, business feature, The New York Times wrote about concerns some residents across the country have about pollution in their water supplies from natural gas drilling. The paper traveled to northeastern Pennsylvania, where more than a dozen residents' water has been fouled by the drilling process and the state is arranging to replace their drinking-water supply.

Scientists have tested the molecular composition of the methane found in Dimock and determined that it came from the Devonian layer of shale, thousands of feet below the surface. In geologic geek-speak, it's called "thermogenic," meaning it is essentially the same kind of gas that the energy companies are drilling for.

Residents in Dimock and across the country have found thermogenic gas in their water where drilling is taking place. Many people are blaming the invasive and controversial drilling process called hydraulic fracturing, and federal authorities are studying whether that process in particular is endangering water supplies in several states. But whether it was fracking or some other part of the drilling process -- the construction of the wells, for example -- there is little debate among regulators and scientists that the contamination in Dimock is related to the drilling.

More to come and I will continue following the story.

edit on 17-11-2010 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 02:49 PM
An update: Haliburton has disclosed most of the ingredients used in fracking on their website, but not to the satisfaction of the opposition. Some chemicals are still off of the list and are being classified as everyday chems used in shampoo and such.
Here's another example of conflict of interest,imo:

Halliburton Loophole

Republican strategist Karl Rove recently told gas industry leaders during a conference in Pittsburgh that the newly elected GOP House will ensure that the U.S. EPA will not be able to regulate fracking. U.S. Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., during this congressional session, introduced the "Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act" - more commonly known as the FRAC Act - to allow the EPA to oversee the process.

The so-called "Halliburton Loophole," a provision inserted into the 2005 energy law passed by Congress, exempts fracking from regulation under the federal Clean Water Act. Currently, the West Virginia and Pennsylvania Departments of Environmental Protection are looking at ways they can help keep fracking in check.

It is energy cronyism at it's best here.


posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:50 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration may require companies drilling for natural gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals being used in a technique called hydraulic fracturing.

Officials are weighing the policy, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said, calling hydraulic fracturing "a hot and very difficult issue" on public and private lands. Also known as "fracking," the process involves pumping millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals underground to force open channels so natural gas will flow.

So something good mat come of this after all, but then again these corps sure know how to find and exploit a loophole! Maybe they will just change the names of some of those chemicals. I hope first please!


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:09 PM
The documentary GasLand came out and I am providing a link to watch(not download).
Tis pretty interesting and really illustrates too many worse case scenarios, some of which have already occurred.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:03 PM

Just wanted to put this up for reference and since part of the speculation in the dying animals involves fracking.
I hope this isn't the culprit but these procedures are dangerous imo.

edit on 5-1-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:52 PM
Since your documenting the dangers of fracking, you may want to get side-tracked somewhat and research the Wyoming drilling. I've never been able to pinpoint the closest drilling to Yellowstone. I know it exists in the state and their is a field to the north and south. But I think there's drilling even closer but I can't find info. Just in case you stumble upon some.

I try not to obsess about fracking because it depresses the hell out of me. It is the most illuminating symptom of a country gone mad from it's cravings for oil, and from the conflict that arises because it's in denial.

I won't distract by filling the page with my Arkansas hypothesis. But if anyone's interested

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:05 PM
reply to post by Robin Marks

research the Wyoming drilling. I've never been able to pinpoint the closest drilling to Yellowstone.

will check it

I try not to obsess about fracking because it depresses the hell out of me

I hear ya on that, and then to find Haliburton involved...sheesh
The thing is too, the gas co's are just beginning to cover all the designated areas for drilling.

Thanks for the link to your thread, I will do the same so we have some cross ref's.


posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:56 PM
I found another with the same hypothesis as myself. And man can they do research.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:30 PM
reply to post by Robin Marks

Thanks for keeping this subject on the fore front. I cannot think of anything more important than ground water, since water touches everything we need to live. I guess the ptb have found a way to toast us all, at last. This is of nightmare proportions. I have to consult maps in order to know where it's safe to drink a coffee, let alone where to hide from these bastards, meaning, where to 'live', or plant roots. There ought to be rioting in the streets of DC over this.

Thanks, john mccain. Thanks a lot. I'm glad you got elected in arizona, once again. All it took was destroying the water across the continent, wherever you could find it.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:39 PM
Here's an idea. Personally, I suspect that doing this at a $tarbuck$ would probably be most effective since all they understand is money.

Order up a dozen expensive drinks. While waiting, ask about the internet hookup. After the drinks are made, while sipping at your venti frap, ask if the water is bottled or from the tap.

They'll say 'tap'.

Spit your drink out on the floor and say "WHAT? Why didn't you TELL me?, and then grab a bottled water from the cooler to rinse your mouth out. Go behind the counter and spit the water in their sink, while gargling and rinsing. Repeat. Have someone in your group vomit. Demand your money back, saying: I'm not paying to get cancer. There are shale formations here! Fracking! I ordered a venti frap, not a venti FRACK!!!!

Show them the map found in this thread.

"I paid $4 for TAP WATER laced with CARCINOGENS?
What's the MATTER with you?
What's the MATTER with you?"

Make sure to speak in projected, fearful tones, exactly the way the zionist media mete out their instructions to you. I am pretty certain you will be speedily refunded, esp as they won't appreciate the publicity. Make sure the place is crowded.

"I'm not paying to get cancer" could become a battle cry against the MIC, esp where 'cellulars' are concerned.
edit on 6-1-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-1-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:42 PM
Don't worry, Haliburton will be just fine. They can buy themselves out of anything, especially when it's actually our own tax dollars helping them to do so.

posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 04:29 PM

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Wow, this one slipped off the board in record time.
Don't mind the "bump" here.
I will add more as this story continues...

edit on 16-11-2010 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the link! Just scary. I too believe that the resulting damage to ground water may be unrepairable. The speed with which this is being implemented demonstrates that the least costly methods are being employed, and insufficient safeguards are being put into place.

posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by elfie

I don't understand why they choose to save money by cutting corners as opposed to investing as safeguard, for peoples protection first, but for money as well, that the company will save from any disasters. Plus they can use there extra safeguarding as a marketing tools for promotion.(since they're all about money it seems). Have open accounts of procedures, checked by various organizations, private and gov. Spend the extra money for state of the art safeguards and make that a centerpiece to your company.

new topics

top topics


log in