Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on December 2, 2010 at 7:22

You know, I really don't get all this "disclosure" ruckus. Every company in the country, who uses, stores, ships or manufactures a chemical, has to make public (under OSHA and other rules) the MSDS sheet for each of those chemicals, to anyone who wants to see it. It is no secret what the components are, of any of these chemicals.

I looked at Halliburton's website and they have over 3400 Material Safety Data Sheets posted. Is it that the general public is not smart enough to read this stuff and make up their minds about whether this is enough information or not? Or, is it EPA being a bully specifically to make the point that they WILL get what they want, HOW they want, no matter what the company tries to do to comply and still protect their proprietary formulas? EPA won't accept MSDS' as sufficient disclosure when they are perfectly acceptable as a means of informing employees about the chemicals they are handling, according to OSHA. So, what's good enough for OSHA (protecting worker health and safety) should be good enough for EPA (protecting environmental health and safety). If there is a difference, someone needs to explain it to me.

So, now, Interior is going to require MORE paperwork and further complicate the permit process in the name of protecting their "public trust" property for the American people. Where does it stop? I am protected enough, environmentally speaking, by my state.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on December 2, 2010 at 10:01

Do the MSDS sheets give percentages of the composition of the fluid?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on December 2, 2010 at 12:09

No, probably not. Wouldn't that be the "proprietary" aspect?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on December 6, 2010 at 11:06

We need to get over this nonsense. They should be required to disclose 100% of the details on anything they release into the environment, including the underground rock strata. I'm amazed that there's any question about requiring full disclosure in the first place.

Frac fluid is released deep underground and potentially migrates elsewhere. It gets sprayed into the air when it flows back. We should have a right to know what we're being exposed to. If you're force pooled, you never agreed to let them spread whatever unknown chemicals they want under your land.

I'm not opposed to fracking, I think it's probably harmless. However, I have a right to know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on December 8, 2010 at 4:25

Are you referring to 100% public disclosure or 100% disclosure to governing bodies for drilling on public lands? There souldn't be much issue with disclosure to governiong entities...this would be comparable to other regulations in other industries.

I don't know how full public disclosure would change things? It won't change force pooling laws? I guess it could change fracking regulations... It gives us more information...so I guess we could make the decision to abandon our properties if we didn't like what we found.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on December 9, 2010 at 13:39

I mean 100% disclosure of chemicals and approximate percentages to the general public of anything going into the environment from any kind of drilling activity, whether it's on public or private land.  Any liquid that goes down a borehole.  My land, your land, from California, to the New York Island.  Posted on a web site somewhere, public domain data.  Updated every month or so. 

 

If you're pouring chemicals out that won't necessarily remain in your own property, I say I have a right to know.

 

People who are force pooled never signed an agreement with the driller accepting environmental risks.  I believe that even those who signed a lease deserve to know what's going under their land. What about people living on land who don't own the mineral rights?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 12, 2010 at 23:42

80)

• ▶ Reply