Halliburton Loophole

<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">torres-sp</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" transparent="transparent" font-weight="font-weight" font-variant-numeric="font-variant-numeric" normal="normal" font-variant-east-asian="font-variant-east-asian" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap">Chapter 10 · Fracturing Politics </span><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" transparent="transparent" font-variant-numeric="font-variant-numeric" normal="normal" font-variant-east-asian="font-variant-east-asian" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap">193 FRACKING</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" transparent="transparent" font-variant-numeric="font-variant-numeric" normal="normal" font-variant-east-asian="font-variant-east-asian" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap"><b>Robert Monk: corps "externalizing machines" 195 once ran coal co , cheap only if ignore rx effects;"death machine";</b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" transparent="transparent" font-variant-numeric="font-variant-numeric" normal="normal" font-variant-east-asian="font-variant-east-asian" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">PUC</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> regulatory capture</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> when only corps show up for mtgs, tough b/c very technical and hard for regular people to grasp; even tougher when info secret proprietary p199 Colo nurse treated man who spill frack fluids on self (fumes from boots?) she had mult organ fail and nearly died, Cathy Behr</span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">; ZetaFlow co wd not tell Dr what was in fluid</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> 200; data sheet 2 proprietary compounds; 14% sheets complete, ½ of products less than 1% could be determined 201; </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Hallib said reveal wd be unconstitutional TAKING</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">; told Colo if forced to reveal wd leave state 202; ~ scotus precedent: 2015 Horne v Dept Agr upheld 1984 Ruckleshaus NOT taking.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" transparent="transparent" font-variant-numeric="font-variant-numeric" normal="normal" font-variant-east-asian="font-variant-east-asian" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap"><b>When facts not on corp side, shift to disinfo PR campaign</b> eg AGW; tobacco doubt science playbook;</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.38; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" transparent="transparent" font-variant-numeric="font-variant-numeric" normal="normal" font-variant-east-asian="font-variant-east-asian" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap">Reg capture MMS; ALEC PA Dr gag rule frack; state must step up when fed fail [but colo state frack ~ local ords]</span></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">oct 2014</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="http://environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/FRACKINGS-TOXIC-LOOPHOLE.pdf"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/FRACKINGS-TOXIC-LOOPHOLE.pdf</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FRACKING’S TOXIC LOOPHOLE Thanks to the “Halliburton Loophole,” Hydraulic Fracturing Companies Are Injecting Chemicals More Toxic than Diesel </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires drilling companies to obtain Safe Drinking Water Act permits before they are allowed to inject diesel products into the ground to hydrofracture (“frack”) for oil and gas. These permits act as safeguards for public health because they require drillers to take steps to reduce the risk that benzene and related pollutants found in diesel will contaminate groundwater.1<b> The compounds found in diesel, called BTEX for Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene, are highly toxic and subject to federal health-based standards for drinking water to reduce the risk of cancer and other diseases</b>.2</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> An August 2014 report by the Environmental Integrity Project, “Fracking Beyond the Law,” documented the illegal use of diesel in fracking and described how this practice poses a risk to drinking water supplies. This follow-up report describes an even greater potential public health threat from a loophole in the law. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Because of a gap in the Safe Drinking Water Act, companies are allowed to inject other petroleum products (beyond diesel) without a permit, and many of these non-diesel drilling fluids contain even higher concentrations of the same toxins found in diesel. This report is based on a review of drilling company disclosures made to an industry-sponsored database of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, called “FracFocus,” as well as industry Material Data Safety Sheets. Exactly how often companies use these other highly toxic petroleum products in fracking is unclear, in part because not all firms disclose to FracFocus, and some of those that do withhold chemical ingredients as “proprietary” information. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the Environmental Integrity Project’s research suggests the use of fluids containing one or more BTEX toxins is fairly common. At least six fracking fluid additives on the market today contain more benzene (a carcinogen) than diesel fuel (see table C on page 4). And at least 21 fluids sold by Halliburton and other companies contain much higher concentrations of ethylbenzene (a probable carcinogen), xylene or toluene (which can cause neurological problems and other health effects) than diesel (see table F on page 6). Even the limited data available on FracFocus shows at least 153 wells in 11 states were fracked with fluids containing ethylbenzene between January 2011 and September 2014 (see attachment 1). In some cases, the amount of toxic (but non-diesel) fracking fluids being injected into the ground is large. For example, in September 2014, a Texas-based oil and gas company called BlackBrush O&G, LLC, reported injecting a mix of crude oil, butane, and other fluids containing up to 48,000 gallons of benzene into a well in Dimmit County, Texas...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-chemicals-secret-2511076831.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-chemicals-secret-2511076831.html</a></font></p><p style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows that dozens of the chemicals used in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/fracking/" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">fracking</a> pose health hazards. The agency not only allows their use, but also lets the oil and gas industry keep the chemicals secret, according to a new report.</p><p style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Between 2003 and 2014 the EPA identified health hazards for 41 chemicals used in fracking, <a href="http://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PFPI_ToxicSecrets_4-7-2016.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">according to a report</a> from the <a href="http://www.pfpi.net/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">Partnership for Policy Integrity</a> and <a href="https://www.earthworksaction.org/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">Earthworks</a>, based on documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Fracking is the injection of a chemical slurry into drilling sites to free up underground oil and gas deposits. Hazards from the chemicals used included irritation to eyes and skin; harm to the liver, kidney and nervous system; and damage to the developing fetus.</p><p style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Nonetheless, in most cases, the EPA allowed the chemicals to be manufactured and used without further testing. What's more, the identities of the chemicals are hidden from the public, even though federal law authorizes the EPA to require disclosure of so-called trade secrets if there is unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.</p><p style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In response to the report, more than 100 scientists, health professionals and first responders <a href="http://cdn3.ewg.org/sites/default/files/u381/LettertoEPAredrilling%26frackingchemicals11.15.2017.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">wrote the EPA</a>, asking that it make public the identities of the chemicals known to pose health hazards.</p><p style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Citizens have a right to know what health hazards we are being exposed to, especially when these hazards have been identified by government health assessments ... It is an unreasonable risk for people to be unknowingly exposed to chemicals that EPA, itself, has identified as potentially harmful," said the letter. Signers included Sandra Steingraber, author of <em><a href="http://steingraber.com/books/living-downstream/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">Living Downstream</a> </em>and other acclaimed books on environmental health, and Wilma Subra, winner of a MacArthur "genius" award for her work to <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2015/nov/16-the-peoples-scientist" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">help vulnerable communities document the health risks of industrial pollution.</a></p><p style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A recent <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/EHP1535/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">investigation</a> led by the nonprofit group <a href="https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy</a>reported that 17.6 million Americans live within a mile of least one active oil or gas well, and could be exposed to toxic chemicals used in oil and gas production. Despite these risks, there are no federal requirements for disclosure of the names and types of toxic chemicals pumped into wells near citizens' backyards. At the state level, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/california-s-toxic-fracking-fluid-chemical-recipe#.Wg4sZ62ZOcY" target="blank" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-line: none;">California</a> has adopted a comprehensive disclosure program for chemicals used in oil and gas, but most other states still allow protection of trade secrets.</p><p style="color: rgb(31, 31, 31); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">...</p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/03/17/architect-fracking-loophole-trump-environmental-council-bill-cooper" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: 0px;">The deconstruction continues</strong></a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> –> Steve Horn reports for </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">DeSmogBlog</em><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> that the Trump administration is considering a fracking lobbyist to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Bill Cooper is best known among industry insiders as the man who successfully pushed the “Halliburton loophole,” a provision that exempted fracking from EPA oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act, making it more complicated for regulators to crack down on gas drillers who polluted water supplies.</span></font></p><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/03/17/architect-fracking-loophole-trump-environmental-council-bill-cooper">https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/03/17/architect-fracking-loophole-trump-environmental-council-bill-cooper</a></font></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no many link</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Architect of Federal Fracking Loophole May Head Trump Environmental Council</b></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By Steve Horn • Friday, March 17, 2017 - 03:58</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Confidential sources have told Politico that Bill Cooper — current congressional staffer and former fossil fuel industry lobbyist and attorney — is under consideration to head President Donald Trump's White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CEQ works to coordinate various federal agencies dealing with environmental and energy public policy issues and oversees the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process for proposed infrastructure projects.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Cooper served as legal counsel for the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee on what is today known as the “Halliburton Loophole,” a clause which exempts hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Halliburton Loophole was slipped into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and became law under President George W. Bush.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A 2005 newsletter published by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) credits Cooper specifically for his work in getting the clause inserted into the bill. </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Cooper's concerns about potential EPA regulation of fracking — as championed by Democrats several years earlier — piqued the interest of the Republican chairman of the<b> House Energy and Commerce Committee, Billy Tauzin of Louisiana,</b> as well as <b>Joe Barton of Texas, the chairman of the subcommittee on air quality,</b>” industry publication The Oil Daily furhter reported in December 2013. “Their mantra was 'Let's fix it, and let's fix it right.'”</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In a Truth in Testimony form Cooper submitted before testifying at a 2013 House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing, he also cited the central role he played in negotiating and writing the <b>Energy Policy Acts of 2002 and 2003,</b> both of which had Halliburton Loophole provisions. On that form, Cooper also listed his experience as an oil and gas industry attorney.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Practiced law, serving clients in oil and gas exploration, development, production, including natural gas gathering, transmission, and distribution, provided counsel in the development of litigation, acquisition, and divestment strategies, personnel policies, regulatory compliance, and long-range initiatives,” reads the form. “Conducted due diligence for oil and gas exploration companies for acquisitions, divestitures, and litigation. Supervised survey crews, independent contractor drilling crews, well stimulation, geophysical, and completion crews for oil and gas wells. Prepared budgets and managed expenditures of all funds for the execution of drilling programs.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Cooper presently serves as staff director for the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and formerly was a lobbyist for the<b> Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG), American Petroleum Institute (API), and Southern Company.</b></span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CLNG, where Cooper worked for nearly a decade before passing through the reverse revolving door and returning to work for Congress, was created by the American Petroleum Institute. </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Industry-Sponsored Junkets</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Cooper's amicability toward the oil and gas industry was clear during his first stint working as a congressional staffer, before he became a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For example, he attended the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) 2004 meeting in Oklahoma City — on the IOGCC dime — while working for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to congressional travel disclosure records reviewed by DeSmog. Sponsors of that meeting included BP, Chesapeake Energy, Devon Energy, Dominion Energy, Kerr-McGee (now Anadarko Petroleum), Williams Energy, and others.</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">IOGCC, a congressionally authorized, interstate quasi-government agency whose members are oil and gas industry state regulators, lobbyists, and executives, played a central role in advocating for the Halliburton Loophole.  </span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Thanks to the Halliburton Loophole, the oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by EPA to inject known hazardous materials — unchecked — directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies,” Jennifer Krill, Earthworks executive director, told DeSmog.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As a House Energy and Commerce staffer, Cooper traveled on numerous other industry-funded trips beyond IOGCC's 2004 meeting, according to congressional travel disclosure forms reviewed by DeSmog. Among the trips:</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">-A junket to the Alberta tar sands sponsored by Shell Oil to visit its Muskeg River site.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">-A 2003 trip to discuss the Energy Policy Act of 2003 at a meeting of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (which today sponsors the influential fracking front group, <b>Energy in Depth).</b> </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">-An <b>El Paso </b>Corporation–funded 2002 paid speaking gig at the annual meeting of the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS, now the Western Energy Alliance, or WEA).</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">-A BP-sponsored speaking appearance in 2004 in which Cooper discussed energy policy, according to his disclosure form, but was listed by BP as an “industry speaker.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CEQ Climate Denial History Redux</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">George W. Bush's CEQ chief of staff Phillip Cooney also was a former API lobbyist-turned-CEQ staffer. During his tenure at the council, Cooney doctored scientific reports about climate change written by U.S. government agencies and then left to become a lobbyist for ExxonMobil. </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">History could repeat itself, in a sense, if Cooper takes the helm at CEQ.</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">That's because the Trump White House CEQ, according to a recent story by Bloomberg, may ax climate change impacts from consideration in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental reviews, a goal of API and CLNG for the past several years. President Barack Obama's CEQ issued the guidance for government agenies to consider climate change in these reviews.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Cooper has publicly supported cutting climate change out of the NEPA process, and according to his bio for a recent speech at a Natural Gas Roundtable, he presently acts as a NEPA senior policy advisor for his Committee on Natural Resources job.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Without boxing ourselves in [we plan to] look at the CEQ's guide on [greenhouse gases] as a first step” toward streamlining the NEPA process, Cooper told Inside EPA in December 2016. “We think it's an opportunity for us to correct a lot of wrongs, and that in and of itself should streamline the process.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Some are concerned about such maneuvers espoused by Cooper, however.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The push for climate change's non-inclusion in NEPA appraisals “puts our country, our communities, and our people at great risk,” Paul Getsos, national coordinator for the April 29 People’s Climate Movement march, told Bloomberg. “It also sends a dangerous message to the world that the United States does not care about climate change or protecting front-line communities.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Cooper did not respond to a request for comment for this story.</div></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></span></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">

 </font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">10 yr anni:</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://www.alternet.org/print/environment/10-years-later-fracking-and-halliburton-loophole</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This past Saturday, marked a notable 10th anniversary. But it was certainly nothing to celebrate. Ten years ago, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The giant energy bill included massive giveaways for the fossil fuel, <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/nuclear-energy-energy/">nuclear</a> <span class="print-footnote">[3]</span> and ethanol industries and provided only token incentives for <a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/">renewables</a> <span class="print-footnote">[4]</span> and improved energy efficiency. But the most infamous piece of the law was what is now commonly known as the “<a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/halliburton-acquires-baker-hughes-and-its-trade-secrets/" target="blank">Halliburton Loophole</a> <span class="print-footnote">[5]</span>,” an egregious regulatory exemption that ushered in the disastrous era of widespread oil and gas fracking that currently grips our nation.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/fracking-2/">Fracking</a> <span class="print-footnote">[12]</span>— the extreme oil and gas extraction method that involves blasting millions of gallons of water mixed with toxic chemicals underground at enormous pressures to break apart subterranean rock — has exploded in the last decade. More than 270,000 wells have been fracked in 25 states throughout the nation. More than 10 million Americans live within a mile of a fracking site. This means that 10 million Americans — and truly many more — have been placed directly in harm’s way. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have connected fracking to serious human health effects, including cancer, asthma and birth defects.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For this we can thank the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005" target="blank">Energy Policy Act of 2005</a> <span class="print-footnote">[13]</span>, the law that holds the Halliburton Loophole. Named after Dick Cheney and the notorious corporation he led before becoming vice president, the law (championed by Cheney and disgraced Enron founder Kenneth Lay, among others) explicitly exempted fracking operations from key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These exemptions from one of America’s most fundamental environmental protection laws provided the oil and gas industry the immunity it required to develop a highly polluting process on a grand national scale.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[vid]</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">One of the most troubling repercussions is how fracking companies hide the contents of their toxic water and chemical solutions pumped into the ground. Contamination of underground drinking water sources from fracking fluids is a glaring threat to public health and safety. Yet even doctors responding to fracking-related health complaints can’t access data on what particular chemicals their patients may have been exposed to.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But the Halliburton Loophole wasn’t the only fracking enabler in the Energy Policy Act. The act granted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (<a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=ferc">FERC</a> <span class="print-footnote">[14]</span>) sweeping new authority to supersede state and local decision-making with regard to the citing of fracked gas pipelines and infrastructure. It also shifted to FERC industry oversight and compliance responsibility for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, another key law. This was akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As it stands, <a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/standing-by-those-who-stand-in-the-way-of-fracking-infrastructure/" target="blank">FERC is entirely unaccountable to public will</a> <span class="print-footnote">[15]</span>. It is unaccountable to Congress and even the White House. Commissioners are appointed to five-year terms and can do as they please. Until a law reigning in FERC is passed, the commission will continue to act as a rubber-stamp for the fossil fuel industry.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Additionally, the Energy Policy Act repealed an important anti-monopoly law, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). PUHCA safeguarded consumers from the overreach of the oil and gas industry and banks that did business with those companies. It prevented the formation of giant state and regional energy cartels that could manipulate energy costs, engage in profiteering and exert undue influence over political debate. The Energy Policy Act transferred most of this oversight to FERC. </font><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Since then, the largest American energy companies have grown significantly more powerful and spent almost a billion dollars on federal lobbying, according to <a href="http://opensecrets.org/" target="blank">OpenSecrets.org</a> </span><span class="print-footnote" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[16]</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The 10th anniversary of the Energy Policy Act is indeed a sad occasion, but it provides us with a ripe opportunity to reexamine our nation’s disastrous policy of doubling-down on fossil fuels over the last decade, thanks to the extreme process of fracking. For the sake of countless Americans who are currently suffering health effects caused by fracking and the countless more who will suffer in the future, we must immediately curtail our dependence on oil and gas and turn decisively toward a truly clean, renewable energy future.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">

 </font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">===

 </font></p>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Twenty states now require companies to disclose the chemicals they use in the hydraulic fracturing process used to pry gas and oil from tight geological formations. But, as part of the omnibus </span><a href="http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2013&DocNum=7819&SeqNum=0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">Energy Modernization Act, SB 786</a><span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">, North Carolina Republicans want to impose civil and criminal penalties, including prison time, on anyone who makes such a disclosure.</span>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Molly Redden at <em style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4;">Mother Jones</em> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/05/north-carolina-felony-fracking-chemicals-disclosure" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">reports</a>:<br style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4;" />

 </font></p>

<blockquote style="margin: 1.2em 0px; padding: 20px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-color: rgb(226, 226, 225); border-bottom-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(226, 226, 225); border-top-style: solid;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"The felony provision is far stricter than most states' provisions in terms of the penalty for violating trade secrets," says Hannah Wiseman, a Florida State University assistant law professor who studies fracking regulations.

</font><p style=" margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The bill also allows companies that own the chemical information to require emergency responders to sign a confidentiality agreement. And it's not clear what the penalty would be for a health care worker or fire chief who spoke about their experiences with chemical accidents to colleagues.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"I think the only penalties to fire chiefs and doctors, if they talked about it at their annual conference, would be the penalties contained in the confidentiality agreement," says Wiseman. "But [the bill] is so poorly worded, I cannot confirm that if an emergency responder or fire chief discloses that confidential information, they too would not be subject to a felony."</font></p>

</blockquote>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">Michael Biesecker of the Associated Press </span><a href="http://hamptonroads.com/2014/05/nc-board-members-met-lobbyist-fracking-rules" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">reported</a><span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> last week that three members of the state's Mining and Energy Commission met privately with officials of companies that use fracking chemicals before the bill was introduced. Among them was Halliburton. The bill assigns the task of issuing fracking licenses to the commission.</span>

</font><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Greenpeace, which <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/16/emails-reveal-officials-close-with-fracking-lobbyest/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">obtained a cache</a> of emails and meeting schedules from the MEC, concluded that there is a "cozy relationship" between the commission and industry.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Please read below the fold for more on this bill.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sue Sturgis at the Institute for Southern Studies' "Facing South" blog <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/2014/05/nc-fracking-bill-orders-prison-time-for-disclosing.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">wrote</a> that Halliburton's complaints had gotten an earlier bill pulled from consideration because it had more constraints on industry. A lobbyist for Halliburton and Koch Industries, D. Bowen "Bo" Heath, managed to get the bill removed in favor of model legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The North Carolina Conservation Network <a href="http://frackfreenc.org/wp-content/uploads/s786-short-5-16-14.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">opposes</a> SB 786 for a number of reasons—for what it excludes as much as what is in it.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Missing from the bill, the network says: regulation of "compulsory pooling," under which companies can drill on land without the owner's permission; disposal of fracking wastewater; contamination discovered after drilling is completed; and toxic air emissions from fracking. The bill would also cut in half the zone of liability for drillers who contaminate drinking water and would forbid local jurisdictions from banning fracking or regulating the siting of fracking wells.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/19/1300472/-NC-Republicans-push-industry-desires-in-bill-that-would-jail-anyone-who-discloses-fracking-chemicals">http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/19/1300472/-NC-Republicans-push-industry-desires-in-bill-that-would-jail-anyone-who-discloses-fracking-chemicals</a></span></font></p>

</div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing</font></div>

</font></div>

 </font></p>

</blockquote>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Please read below the fold for more on this bill.</font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Please read below the fold for more on this bill.</font></p>

<p style=" margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4;"><font color="#242424">Sue Sturgis at the Institute for Southern Studies' "Facing South" blog </font><a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/2014/05/nc-fracking-bill-orders-prison-time-for-disclosing.html" style=" color: rgb(124, 71, 12); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">wrote</a><font color="#242424"> that</font><b><font color="#ff0000"> Halliburton's complaints had gotten an earlier bill pulled from consideration because it had more constraints on industry</font></b><font color="#242424">.<b> A lobbyist for Halliburton and Koch Industries, D. Bowen "Bo" Heath, managed to get the bill removed in favor of model legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).</b></font>

The North Carolina Conservation Network <a href="http://frackfreenc.org/wp-content/uploads/s786-short-5-16-14.pdf" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; color: rgb(124, 71, 12); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">opposes</a> SB 786 for a number of reasons—for what it excludes as much as what is in it.

Missing from the bill, the network says: regulation of "compulsory pooling," under which companies can drill on land without the owner's permission; disposal of fracking wastewater; contamination discovered after drilling is completed; and toxic air emissions from fracking. The bill would also cut in half the zone of liability for drillers who contaminate drinking water and would forbid local jurisdictions from banning fracking or regulating the siting of fracking wells.</p>

</div>

<h4 style=" margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.1; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(112, 109, 90); font-family: 'IM Fell English', serif; font-weight: normal; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ALSO REPUBLISHED BY <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/blog/North%20Carolina%20BLUE/" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; color: rgb(124, 71, 12); text-decoration: none;">NORTH CAROLINA BLUE</a>, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/blog/DK%20GreenRoots/" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; color: rgb(124, 71, 12); text-decoration: none;">DK GREENROOTS</a>, AND <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/blog/main/" style=" margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; color: rgb(124, 71, 12); text-decoration: none;">DAILY KOS</a>.</h4>

</div>

<p style=" margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.200000762939453px; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(36, 36, 36); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/19/1300472/-NC-Republicans-push-industry-desires-in-bill-that-would-jail-anyone-who-discloses-fracking-chemicals">http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/19/1300472/-NC-Republicans-push-industry-desires-in-bill-that-would-jail-anyone-who-discloses-fracking-chemicals </a>

==</p>

</div>

<p>===

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/chemical-industry-campaign-contributions-environmental-regulations_n_2017412.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/chemical-industry-campaign-contributions-environmental-regulations_n_2017412.html</a></p>

<h1 class="title-news"><font size="4">Chemical Industry Uses Wallet To Block Tighter Regulations, Environmental Advocates Say</font></h1>

<p><span class="posted-and-updated">Posted: <span itemprop="datePublished"><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">10/25/2012 </span>6:57 pm EDT</span> Updated: <span itemprop="dateModified">10/25/2012 7:51 pm EDT</span></span></p>

</div>

<p>In an effort to block a <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food%282012%29" target="hplink">ballot measure in California</a> that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods, shape a <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/oh/ohio_senate_mandel_vs_brown-2100.html" target="hplink">Senate race in Ohio</a> with potential repercussions for fracking, and influence a host of <a href="http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Elections/2012/House/Michigan/6/" target="_hplink">House contests</a> key to toxic chemical reform -- the chemical industry has been busy wielding its wallet, say environmental advocates.

New numbers support that assertion: Tens of millions of dollars continue to feed industry friendly causes and candidates this election season, with federal campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures by the chemical industry more than doubling since 2000.

"The more the truth has gotten out about the chemical regulatory system not working; the more the science has shed light on the consequences for American families as they bear the burden of problems linked to environmental exposures such as learning disabilities, childhood cancer and breast cancer; I think the more it has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/22/national-stroller-brigade-toxic-chemical-reform_n_1536587.html" target="hplink">increased demands for change</a>," said Andy Igrejas, national campaign director for the nonprofit <a href="http://www.saferchemicals.org/" target="hplink">Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families</a>.

"And industry has ramped up its spending to block such a change," he added.

The chemical and agro-chemical industries have generally argued that stiffer regulations would be overly burdensome to companies and costly to the country. Anne Kolton of the<font color="#FF0000"> American Chemistry Council,</font> a lobbying group for the chemical industry, said the ACC is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanChemistry" target="_hplink">"proud" of its efforts</a> to "highlight the good work being done in Washington to grow the economy and create jobs."

<span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a href="http://monsantoblog.com/2012/08/14/taking-a-stand-proposition-37-the-california-labeling-proposal/" target="hplink">Monsanto</a> and other agro-chemical companies have invested <a href="http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2012/november/prop-37/funding" target="hplink">more than $20 million</a> -- on top of the food industry's nearly equivalent contribution -- for ads <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/gmo-proposition-37-study-funding-research_n_1904535.html" target="_hplink">opposing Proposition 37</a>, a California measure that would require labeling of genetically modified foods, or GMOs. Proponents of the bill have raised less than $8 million.</span>

Meanwhile,<span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> chemical interests have spent some $375 million since 2005 to help elect and try to influence federal leaders, </span>specifically in regards to a pending overhaul of the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html" target="hplink">Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976</a> (TSCA), according to a <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/COMMONCAUSE_TOXICSPENDING-10%2023%20FINAL.PDF" target="hplink">report</a> released this week by <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8281551" target="_hplink">Common Cause</a>, a nonprofit, nonpartisan citizen's lobbying organization.

"It's been 36 years since they passed TSCA, and people are showing how it really fails to protect people," said James Browning, Common Cause's regional director for state operations and a principal author of the report. "Public health advocates are starting to win the fight, they have so much evidence on their side. Industry is realizing it needs to start spending more to stop it."</p>

<p>

In July, the Safe Chemicals Act <a href="http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=337325" target="hplink">passed out of the Senate<span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Environment and Public Works</span> Committee</a>. First introduced by Sen. Frank <span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Lautenberg </span>(D-N.J.) in 2005, the act would replace the TSCA and essentially <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/safe-chemicals-act-flame-retardants_n_1699384.html" target="hplink">reverse the burden of proof</a> on chemical safety. In other words, chemicals would be required to be tested and proven safe before they are placed on store shelves -- something that it not the case today. The bill is now awaiting a vote from the full Senate.

The ACC, whose <a href="http://www.americanchemistry.com/Membership/MemberCompanies#M" target="_hplink">member companies'</a> spending was included in the Common Cause report, has said it is committed to working on a bipartisan bill, but has also expressed concerns with the Safe Chemicals Act.

"As one of America's most significant manufacturing industries, we have a significant interest in seeing good policies enacted that will encourage economic growth and job creation including a balanced approach to regulation, a strong domestic energy policy and sound tax and trade policies, and we believe it is important to support leaders in Congress who share those priorities," Kolton said.

Overall, Common Cause found that chemical industry contributions in the current election cycle have gone predominantly to <span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Republicans: 78 percent </span>compared to 22 percent for Democrats. President Barack Obama received $217,283, for example, compared to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's $704,337.

The report, titled "Toxic Spending," also highlights how the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened up a new "avenue of influence" for the chemical industry in the form of so-called <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/outside-groups-senate-races_n_2011468.html" target="_hplink">Super PACs</a>. Chemical interests have given $23 million to these groups in the current elections, according to the study.

Browning noted that actual spending numbers are likely even higher due to incomplete tracking of ad spending and a surge of undisclosed contributions from <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofits-spend-millions-on-elections-and-call-it-public-welfare" target="_hplink">nonprofit organizations</a>.

This year, chemical interests are targeting a few key races, Browning said, including a heated Senate battle in Ohio. Josh Mandel, the Republican contender, ranks third among recipients of chemical industry campaign contributions, and has expressed plans to <a href="http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/mandel-ruffles-feathers-in-anti-fracking-community-1.312941?month=7&year=2012" target="_hplink">open up more land to natural gas drilling</a>. Calls and emails to Mandel's campaign office seeking comment were not returned.

 </p>

</div>

<p>"Clearly, they see Ohio as pivotal and that race as pivotal," Browning said.

A<span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/Ohio--Deep%20Drilling%20Deep%20Pockets%20Nov%202011.pdf" target="_hplink">Common Cause report from last year</a> found people on Rep. Fred Upton's (R-Mich.) House Energy & Commerce Committee who voted for the so-called Haliburton loophole</span> -- which essentially exempts the natural gas industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act -- received more than six times as much money from oil and gas companies as people who voted against it.

"There's a long history of industry throwing weight around and with it being successful," Browning added.</p>