Called hydraulic fracturing, it is used to extract oil and
methane gas from underground. The energy bill exemption is aimed
at overturning a federal appeals court decision in Alabama that
hydraulic fracturing should be regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.

The biggest beneficiary of the energy bill exemption is
Halliburton, the creator and leading practitioner of hydraulic
fracturing.[1] Analysts estimate that the process represents
about 5 percent of the company's $12 billion total business, or
$600 million.[2]

"The energy bill lavishes subsidies on Halliburton to boost
coalbed methane drilling on public lands, while letting the
company dump toxic pollutants into our drinking water," said
Karen Wayland, a hydrogeologist and the legislative director for
the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The energy bill -- which passed the House but has yet to be
approved by the Senate -- was finalized in secret by
congressional Republicans. It's unknown who added the break for
hydraulic fracturing.

In hydraulic fracturing, chemicals, diesel fuel, hydrochloric
acid and other agents are injected into the ground to help
extract oil and gas. In hydraulic fracturing for methane gas in
coal formations, these fracturing fluids are injected directly
into the water sources. In many instances they remain in the
coal formations even after cleansing attempts using water and
acid.[3]

Hydraulic fracturing is increasingly popular, with drilling now
being done in numerous states, including Alabama, Colorado and
Virginia. Citizens have reported negative effects on their
drinking water.

If the energy bill passes, the EPA would be barred from
prohibiting hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas production,
despite an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case that required EPA
to regulate it as a drinking water contaminant.

Ironically, the EPA appeared disinclined to ban it anyway. Last
year, the agency released the first phase of a study of the
environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing, concluding that the
threat is low and further study is not needed.

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) alleged in a letter to the EPA
that "the administration once again appears to be altering
scientific and policy conclusions to accommodate Halliburton's
interest."[5]

The EPA, Waxman said, had changed its findings on drinking water
contaminants from fracturing after consultations with industry.

###

SOURCES:
[1] Halliburton press release, Jun. 21, 1999.
[2]"Bill aims to protect gas-drilling technique," Houston
Chronicle, Sept. 7, 2003.
[3]Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, Glenwood
Springs Resource Area - Oil & Gas Leasing & Development Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, June, 1998,
Appendix L: Hazardous Materials Summary, pp. L-1, L-4-5.
[4]"Provision in Energy Bill Brings Unease in G.O.P.," New York
Times, Sept. 16, 2003.
[5] Waxman letter to EPA, Oct. 1, 2002.