Fracking Halliburton


In September, the Environmental Protection Agency requested that natural gas drillers hand over information about the substances they are using in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a method that uses a high-pressure blast of chemical compounds, sand, and water to fracture rock and access natural gas reserves. The EPA asked nicely in its letter to nine companies, but said they were prepared to be less polite: “EPA expects the companies to cooperate,” the letter said. If they don’t, “EPA is prepared to use its authorities to require the information needed to carry out its study.”

Well, eight of the companies have complied, leaving just one—Halliburton, the oil field services giant that everyone loves to hate—that has not turned over its fracking data. Yesterday, the EPA followed through on its threat to subpoena the companies data. Halliburton, the EPA said Tuesday, “has failed to provide EPA the information necessary to move forward with this important study.” 

Halliburton said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times that they are “disappointed” by the EPA’s decision:

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. Because the agency’s request was so broad, potentially requiring the company to prepare approximately 50,000 spreadsheets, we have met with the agency and had several additional discussions with EPA personnel in order to help narrow the focus of their unreasonable demands so that we could provide the agency what it needs to complete its study of hydraulic fracturing. We have turned over nearly 5,000 pages of documents as recently as last Friday, Nov. 5, 2010. We are disappointed by the EPA’s decision today. Halliburton welcomes any federal court’s examination of our good faith efforts with the EPA to date.

Halliburton’s reticence is perhaps related to the fact that, according to data released earlier this year, the company admitted to using 807,000 gallons of diesel-based chemicals in its fracking fluids, in violation of an agreement drillers had with the EPA.

The industry successfully lobbied to have fracking fluids exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005, meaning they aren’t required to disclose the chemicals they use. But Congress asked the EPA to conduct a through review of the potential impacts of the fluids on drinking water, which the EPA is supposed to complete by the end of 2012.

One More Thing

And it's a big one. Mother Jones is launching a new Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on the corruption that is both the cause and result of the crisis in our democracy.

The more we thought about how Mother Jones can have the most impact right now, the more we realized that so many stories come down to corruption: People with wealth and power putting their interests first—and often getting away with it.

Our goal is to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We're aiming to create a reporting position dedicated to uncovering corruption, build a team, and let them investigate for a year—publishing our stories in a concerted window: a special issue of our magazine, video and podcast series, and a dedicated online portal so they don't get lost in the daily deluge of headlines and breaking news.

We want to go all in, and we've got seed funding to get started—but we're looking to raise $500,000 in donations this spring so we can go even bigger. You can read about why we think this project is what the moment demands and what we hope to accomplish—and if you like how it sounds, please help us go big with a tax-deductible donation today.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate