Their money or your life

There are a variety of concerns that can be raised with regard to the impact of natural gas drilling in our area, and some of them—like issues related to aesthetics—may be seen as important by some local residents but not by others. But on at least one matter, we all ought to be able to agree: we need to know whether gas drilling contaminates our environment to a degree that our health and that of our children is endangered.

At particular issue is the practice of hydraulic fracture drilling, a procedure pioneered by Halliburton, which involves pumping not only water but additives into the well to help force out the natural gas. Some of these additives are toxic, and there is at least anecdotal evidence showing that these toxins have contaminated the environment surrounding hydraulic fracture wells and caused sickness among people living near them.

The industry argues that an EPA study released in 2004 shows these concerns to be misplaced; the industry concludes that no harm had been done by the procedure. In fact, it was largely on the strength of that report that industry lobbyists succeeded in inserting a provision explicitly exempting hydraulic fracture drilling from regulation into the Energy Act of 2005—legislation essentially drafted behind closed doors in meetings between Vice President and ex-Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney and energy industry representatives.

But the history of that study raises grave questions as to its reliability. To begin with, it was reviewed by a panel consisting largely of individuals who were past or present employees in the energy industry. They overrode the concerns originally expressed by the EPA experts who worked on the report. One member of the panel is on record with The Los Angeles Times as saying, “the original draft of the report reviewed by the panel overstated the risks of fracturing and needed to be toned down.” A number of the EPA water experts who contributed to that original draft objected, and in early 2005, an EPA environmental engineer named Weston Wilson sent the EPA inspector general a statement challenging the study’s methodology and findings. (See latimes.image2.trb.com/lanews/media/acrobat/2004-10/14647025.pdf for a facsimile of the actual letter.) In addition to objecting to the biased nature of the review panel, he noted that no field research was conducted and that the report relied on the companies being investigated for information on the chemicals being used—and those companies could and did conceal some of the ingredients as “trade secrets.”

Inspector General Nikki Tinsley agreed to start a review on the base of Wilson’s allegations. In the meantime, however, Congress passed the energy bill, including the provision exempting hydraulic fracturing from regulation. Tinsley dropped the investigation in January of 2005, and resigned shortly afterward. She explained her decision saying, “Congress has blocked the agency from doing what it should, by law, be required to do. I’m afraid Congress was misled by the EPA’s inappropriate conclusion that this was benign.”

Fortunately, there does seem to have been some movement in Washington recently with regard to re-regulating natural gas drilling. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), held hearings on the matter last October, and the committee is currently continuing to investigate the issue (see article on page 3).

But for the moment, the matter remains in limbo. The Republicans currently in Congress have made it clear that no bill that challenges big corporations can pass through the Senate without a filibuster-proof majority, and President Bush has made it clear that no such legislation will be signed unless it is passed with a veto-proof majority. No law that might regulate hydraulic pressure drilling, or require companies to disclose the chemicals and techniques used, or authorize further studies of its impact, is likely to be passed until 2009 at the earliest.

That means that, at the very least, we need to slow down before inviting this inadequately vetted procedure into our back yards. Once an area has been contaminated or an aquifer has been infiltrated, there will be no putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. We would hope that those considering signing a lease with a gas company are at least willing to wait until we can have full information and, if necessary, the ability to control any harmful effects of drilling on our environment. Their lives—and ours—may depend on it.

Dr. Punnybone

Out of the Blue