The Halliburton Loophole
New York Times Editorial
3 November 2009
Among the many dubious provisions in the 2005 energy bill
was one
dubbed the Halliburton loophole, which was inserted at the behest of -
you guessed it - then-Vice President Dick Cheney, a former chief
executive of Halliburton.
It stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to
regulate a drilling process called hydraulic fracturing. Invented by
Halliburton in the 1940s, it involves injecting a mixture of water,
sand and chemicals, some of them toxic, into underground rock
formations to blast them open and release natural gas.
Hydraulic fracturing has been implicated in a growing number of water
pollution cases across the country. It has become especially
controversial in New York, where regulators are eager to clear the way
for drilling in the New York City watershed, potentially imperiling the
city's water supply. Thankfully, the main company involved has now
decided not to go ahead.
The safety of the nation's water supply should not have to rely on luck
or the public relations talents of the oil and gas industry. Thanks in
part to two New Yorkers - Representative Maurice Hinchey and Senator
Charles Schumer - Congress last week approved a bill that asks the
E.P.A. to conduct a new study on the risks of hydraulic fracturing. An
agency study in 2004 whitewashed the industry and was dismissed by
experts as superficial and politically motivated. This time Congress is
demanding "a transparent, peer-reviewed process."
An even more important bill is waiting in the wings. Cumbersomely named
the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, it would
close the loophole and restore the E.P.A.'s rightful authority to
regulate hydraulic fracturing. It would also require the oil and gas
industry to disclose the chemicals they use.
The industry argues that the chemicals are proprietary secrets and that
disclosing them would hurt their competitiveness. It also argues that
the process is basically safe and that regulating it would deter
domestic production. But if hydraulic fracturing is as safe as the
industry says it is, why should it fear regulation?