Showing posts with label Disclosure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disclosure. Show all posts

Friday, March 15, 2013

Florida Legislature Pushing Fracking Disclosure Bill

Nothing to Sneeze At
by STEVE HORN


Florida may soon become the fourth state with a law on the books enforcing hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) chemical disclosure. The Florida House of Representatives’ Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee voted unanimously (11-0) on March 7 to require chemical disclosure from the fracking industry. For many, that is cause for celebration and applause.

Fracking for oil and gas embedded in shale rock basins across the country and world involves the injection of a 99.5-percent cocktail of water and fine-grained sillica sand into a well that drops under the groundwater table 6,000-10,000 feet and then another 6,000-10,000 feet horizontally. The other .5 percent consists of a mixture of chemicals injected into the well, proprietary information and a “trade secret” under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which current President Barack Obama voted “yes” on as a Senator.

That loophole is referred to by many as the Halliburton Loophole because Dick Cheney had left his position as CEO of Halliburton – one of the largest oil and gas services corporations in the world – to become Vice President and convene the Energy Task Force. That Task Force consisted of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation and Energy. One of its key actions was opening the floodgates for unfettered fracking nationwide.
Between 2001 and the bill’s passage in 2005, the Task Force held over 300 meetings with oil and gas industry lobbyists and upper-level executives. The result was a slew of give-aways to the industry in this omnibus piece of legislation. On top of the “Halliburton Loophole,” the bill also contains an exemption for fracking from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The federal-level response to closing the ”Halliburton Loophole” is the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, a bill that never garnered more than a handful of co-sponsors.

The state-level response, the story goes, is versions of the bill that recently passed onan 11-0 bipartisan basis in a Florida state house subcommittee.

Introduced as the “Fracturing Chemical Usage Disclosure Act” on Feb. 13, bill sponsor Rep. Ray Rodrigues (R-76) told The Palm Beach Post the day the bill passed in Subcommittee that there is ”every indication…at some point in the future” that fracking will proceed in the Sunniland Shale basin and that being “proactive” is the way to go. A senate companion bill was also introduced as SB 1028 by Sen. Jeff Clemons (D-27) and if the bill passes in both chambers, it will be labeled SB 1776.

What Rodrigues didn’t mention: the law was written by what investigative journalist Steve Coll referred to as a “private empire,” ExxonMobil.

Like its federal-level predecessor, it still contains the “trade secrets” loophole. It’s also a model bill distributed both by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), as first revealed by The New York Times in April 2012, and the Council of State Governments (CSG), as first revealed here on DeSmogBlog.
FracFocus Façade: Sunshine State’s Copy-Paste and Disaster-in-the-Make

It’s “Sunshine Week” for open government groups and in the Sunshine State we’ve just witnessed a “copy-paste” job that happened out in broad daylight with no one noticing – until now.

A review of the bill’s verbiage reveals it is essentially a mirror image of ALEC’s Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Act and CSG’s “Act relating to the disclosure of the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids.”

Most telling is the section of Florida’s bill calling for an “online hydraulic fracturing chemical registry.” That registry, like the Texas model the bill is based off of, would be run by FracFocus. An August investigation by Bloomberg News revealed that FracFocus merely offers the façade of disclosure, or a “fig leaf” of it, as U.S. Rep. Diane DiGette (D-CO), co-sponsor of the FRAC Act put it.

“Energy companies failed to list more than two out of every five fracked wells in eight U.S. states from April 11, 2011, when FracFocus began operating, through the end of last year,” wrote Bloomberg. “The gaps reveal shortcomings in the voluntary approach to transparency on the site, which has received funding from oil and gas trade groups and $1.5 million from the U.S. Department of Energy.

In reality, FracFocus is a public relations front for the oil and gas industry, as we reported here in Dec. 2012, explaining,
FracFocus’ domain is registered by Brothers & Company, a public relations firm whose clients include America’s Natural Gas Alliance, Chesapeake Energy, and American Clean Skies Foundation – a front group for Chesapeake Energy.

In short, the bill offers “sunshine” to the public in name only.

“This disclosure bill has a hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through,” Texas Rep. Lon Burnam (D-90) told Bloomberg.

How the Bill Became a “Model”

In May 2011, the Obama Administration Department of Energy (DOE) fracking subcommittee - consisting almost entirely of officials with ties to the oil and gas industry - convened to produce “best practices” for state-level regulations and disclosure standards for fracking.

Out of the subcommittee came the standards written into a Texas bill, HB 3328, passed one month later in June 2011 in a 137-8 roll call vote, while its Senate companion bill passed on a 31-0 unanimous roll call vote. $1.5 million in FracFocus funding stems from the DOE fracking subcommittee.

A Dec. 2012 Bloomberg probe revealed that the industry utilized the “trade secrets” exemption 19,000 times its first year as law of the land in Texas. For perspective, there are only 6,000 fracking wells in the state at-large.

In Oct. 2011 and Dec. 2011, the Texas bill became a “model bill” both at the CSG and ALEC annual meetings, respectively. ExxonMobil was one of the biggest corporate patrons for CSG’s annual meeting that year, serving as a Gold Level Sponsor.

CSG is a partially corporate-funded and taxpayer-subsidized (via portions of state-level budgets) “trade association” which, like ALEC, passes model legislation often written by and voted upon by corporate lobbyists sitting alongside state-level legislators at its annual meetings. It refers to these bills as “Suggested State Legislation” (SSL). Unlike ALEC, its maintains bipartisan membership.

ALEC is 98 percent funded by corporations, corporate-funded foundations and trade associations. Like CSG, ALEC also passes “model bills” at its annual meetings in similar fashion: behind closed doors, with corporate lobbyists sitting alongside state-level legislators voting “up-down” on proposals. Unlike CSG, it’s predominantly a Republican-centric operation.
The New York Times revealed in an April 2012 investigation that ExxonMobil authored the disclosure standards in the Texas bill that came from the DOE fracking subcommittee. ExxonMobil is the number one producer of shale oil and gas in the United States and a corporation which scored $44.9 billion in profits in 2012, $300 million dollars short of the world record for highest ever annual profit (which Exxon set in 2008).

The model bill has passed in Colorado and Pennsylvania and was proposed but failed in Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Indiana, California, and Arkansas. Section 77 of Illinois’ proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation Act - as revealed here on DeSmogBlog - also contains the “trade secret” exemption.

Seven of the 15 members of the Florida Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee are ALEC members.

Industry’s Florida Plans Include Fracking the Everglades

A portion of the Sunniland Trend Shale, based in southwestern and southern Florida, overlaps the Everglades National Park. Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott, a climate change denier, has gone on the record stating fracking in the pristine park is fair game.

Department of Environmental Protection enforcement fell to record-low levels in 2011 in Florida, Scott’s first year in office.

“The total number of enforcement cases fell by more than a fourth (28%) and the DEP Office of General Counsel received the third lowest number of case reports in agency history,” wrote The Bradenton Times. “Pollution penalty assessments dipped by a similar proportion (29%) while penalties actually collected dropped by more than half (57%). The number of big fine cases (more than $100,000) also was cut by half.”

While some speculate as to whether fracking will ever actually happen in Florida, the oil and gas industry has shown it’s serious about developing this shale basin and will host the “Emerging Shale Plays USA” conference in Houston, TX from April 24-25. One of the sessions being led by Brandt Temple, the CEO of Sunrise Exploration & Production is titled, “Mapping The Geological Variance Of The Lower Sunniland To Pinpoint Sweet Spots And Identify Where To Place Wells.”

ALEC’s track-record in the “United States of ALEC” is nothing to sneeze at.

“Each year, close to 1,000 bills, based at least in part on ALEC Model Legislation, are introduced in the states. Of these, an average of 20 percent become law,” ALEC boasts on its website.

One would be remiss given this track record, then, to write off the threat of fracking in the Florida swamplands.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Declassified MK-Ultra Project Documents

Declassified MK-Ultra Project Documents:

Table of Contents: Pages 1-101
                Human behavioural controls. 

continued: .pages 102 to 200

AVAILABLE SOON:" DECLASSIFIED: BEYOND MK-ULTRA: THE TECHNOLOGY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING IN THE 21ST CENTURY". in pdf. and printed form.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Patent Office Exploring Keeping Patents Secret If They're 'Economically Significant'

by Mike Masnick - TechDirt
Fri, Apr 27th 2012
from the wasn't-disclosure-the-point? dept


We're told, repeatedly, by some patent system supporters that the whole point of the patent system is really about "disclosure." Of course, this is a myth for a variety of reasons. The biggest, of course, is that in many industries, patents are both completely useless to learn anything from and are never used to learn how things are done. This is especially true in software, where you will never hear about anyone learning how to do anything from a patent.

A few years back, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) started publishing nearly all patent applications 18 months after the application came in. This is a pretty common practice around the globe. If a patent system is about disclosure, this makes sense -- and in theory, allows for people to point out prior art or protest certain patents before they're issued. There is a current exception for patents deemed in the interest of national security to keep secret (such as patents on nuclear energy).

However, Francisco George points us to the news that the USPTO is now considering also keeping "economically significant" patents secret too (pdf and embedded below). They're exploring this after being directed by Congress -- and it's not hard to see the lobbyists' fingerprints on the specific request:
By statute, patent applications are published no earlier than 18 months after the filing date, but it takes an average of about three years for a patent application to be processed. This period of time between publication and patent award provides worldwide access to the information included in those applications. In some circumstances, this information allows competitors to design around U.S. technologies and seize markets before the U.S. inventor is able to raise financing and secure a market.
As far as can be told, this directive seems to be saying that because patent applications might do what the patent system is supposed to do -- help disclose ideas -- we should keep the applications secret. The problem, of course, is that pretty much every patent applicant is going to think their patent is economically significant. The reality is that pretty much no one knows if their patents are economically meaningful until years later when a product is actually on the market. This proposal seems to serve no purpose other than helping companies not to disclose ideas while still letting them get patents.


2012-09503_PI

Friday, June 24, 2011

Why is the Fracking Fluid Disclosure Law Important?

How did the law happen, and what does it mean for the rest of the country?
Deb Nardone, Director of the Sierra Club Natural Gas Reform Campaign


Significant environmental damage from natural gas extraction is evident across the country, from air pollution in rural counties of Wyoming to wells contaminated in Texas, Colorado, and Pennsylvania.

Sierra Club is moving to enact policies that break our addiction to oil, move us toward a clean energy future, and hold oil and gas companies accountable. This past weekend, Texas certified a law to require natural gas drilling companies to disclose the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process.  Hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" is a process used by the natural gas industry to remove gas from large shale rock deposits deep below the earth's surface. Natural gas drilling and the fracking process currently go unregulated by state and federal officials, despite the potential dangerous effect to our air, water, communities and landscapes with important wildlife and recreational value.

This new law comes during intense debate over the safety and health implications of this drilling process and in a state that positioned itself as a leader in oil and gas drilling. How did this happen?

The bill originated in the state House by State Representative Jim Keffer of Eastland, TX. Upon passage, the bill moved to the state Senate with State Senator Troy Fraser as the sponsor. The bill passed both chambers and was signed into law on June 17.  

It is important to note that this first step forward could not have been accomplished if it weren’t for the hard work and determination of the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter. Cyrus Reed, the Lone Star Chapter's Conservation Director, devoted tremendous time and energy lobbying for the inclusion of several amendments proposed by the Sierra Club. The chapter's hard work on this issue led the way for chapters across the country that are pushing for fracking fluid disclosure in their own states.

Although Texas is the first state to make fracking fluid disclosure a law, many states already have rules in place to require well and fracturing fluid chemical reporting. Currently, Colorado requires operators to maintain an inventory of chemicals exceeding 500 pounds in a quarterly reporting period. Maryland requires operators to include drilling additives used and a description of their toxicity in drilling applications. Pennsylvania requires operators to prepare a Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency Plan that includes a list of the chemicals used.

While this is a step in the right direction, there is still much more that should be required in each gas producing state. All chemicals used in fracking and well production, including volume and concentration,  should be reported to state regulatory agencies prior to their use, including proprietary "trade secrets."  This information should be posted online and available to the general public. Of course the most important part of the puzzle is how the states monitor and enforce the accuracy of reported data. More and more states are beginning to take action into their own hands as the U.S. Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency continue to drag their feet in closing the Halliburton Loophole and forcing disclosure of these dangerous chemicals.

Full public disclosure is essential for landowners, state regulators, emergency personnel and the general public to understand what is being pumped underground. We are tired of being kept in the dark about fracking, and we can't allow the gas industry to continue pushing our concerns aside. Congratulations to the Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter for keeping vigilant and fighting for key amendments to this bill.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Critics Find Gaps in State Laws to Disclose Hydrofracking Chemicals



by Nicholas Kusnetz 
Over the past year, five states have begun requiring energy companies to disclose some of the chemicals they pump into the ground to extract oil and gas using the process of hydraulic fracturing.
 
 While state regulators and the drilling industry say the rules should help resolve concerns about the safety of drilling, critics and some toxicologists say the requirements fall short of what’s needed to fully understand the risks to public health and the environment.

The regulations allow companies to keep proprietary chemicals secret from the public and, in some states, from regulators. Though most of the states require companies to report the volume and concentration of different drilling products, no state asks for the amounts of all the ingredients, a gap that some say is disturbing.

“It’s a shell game,” said Theo Colborn, a toxicologist who has testified before Congress about the dangers of drilling chemicals. Colborn and her organization, TEDX, examine the long-term health risks of chemicals and have opposed the expansion of drilling in Colorado and elsewhere. “They’re not telling you everything that there is to know.”

Others say the regulations, despite some flaws, are moving in the right direction. “It’s just a step in the process,” said the Sierra Club’s Cyrus Reed, who worked on a bill signed into law in Texas on Friday [1].

Most drillers have supported the measures. Some say more complete disclosure isn’t necessary because the information that remains secret involves only nonhazardous chemicals or trade secrets that are a small fraction of products they inject. Energy companies recently have begun voluntarily disclosing some of the chemicals they use on FracFocus [2], a web site run by two groups representing state regulators.

“While we support disclosing our ingredients, it is critical to our business that we protect our recipe,” Tara Mullee Agard, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, one of the world’s largest oil and gas service companies, told ProPublica in an email.

Gas drilling has surged across the country over the past few years due to technological advances that include hydraulic fracturing, in which drillers pump millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals underground to free up trapped deposits of natural gas. Energy companies are increasingly using the technique, dubbed “fracking,” in oil recovery, particularly in Texas and North Dakota.

ProPublica first began reporting [3] on health and environmental concerns surrounding fracking three years ago. Gas companies are exempt from federal laws protecting water supplies, leaving it up to states to decide what sort of regulations are needed to protect ground and surface water.

Wyoming takes the lead
Wyoming’s rules are the strongest in place, although it’s unclear how thoroughly they are being enforced. The rules require public disclosure of all the chemicals except for trade secrets, which drillers must submit for regulators’ eyes only. The only thing the rule lacks, critics say, is a requirement to report the concentration of the individual chemicals.

Three reports that were selected at random and reviewed by ProPublica appeared to leave out some of the chemicals used. Tom Doll, the state’s oil and gas supervisor, said his agency has two staff members reviewing each of the reports.

“They’ve obviously missed some of these,” he said.

In Arkansas, manufacturers are not required to disclose proprietary fracking chemicals to regulators. Rules in Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania have similar exemptions. (See a summary of the state rules [4].)

Some environmentalists and toxicologists say the state rules give energy companies too much discretion.

Companies can get trade secret protection, for instance, simply by asserting that disclosure would hurt their business and showing that details about a chemical are not otherwise public. More than 100 such exemptions have been granted in Wyoming, though most of the exempt products haven’t been used, Doll said.

Advocates of disclosure say that, at a minimum, proprietary information should be on file with state regulators, as in Wyoming, so it can be accessed quickly in an emergency.

Federal law already requires chemical manufacturers to share trade secrets with health care providers in emergency situations, but getting the information into the public domain can be a slow process, said Daniel Teitelbaum, an adjunct professor of toxicology at the Colorado School of Mines.

“If you call someone on Saturday … it may be Tuesday before you can find someone who has the actual formula,” said Teitelbaum, who has worked for environmental groups on disclosure and chemical safety. “It is not a straightforward process by any means.”

On April 19, fracking fluids spilled during a blowout at a Chesapeake Energy well in Pennsylvania. [5] While no one was directly injured, Brian Grove, a company spokesman, said a full ingredient list [6] was provided to state regulators the following day and to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a week after the spill. Chesapeake voluntarily posted the list to FracFocus on May 13.

The mixture of fluids used to fracture a well generally contains several different products, which themselves can contain multiple chemical ingredients. While the industry has used hundreds of chemicals to frack wells across the country, the mixture regularly includes ingredients such as hydrochloric acid, methanol, a disinfectant called glutaraldehyde and petroleum distillates.

These chemicals usually comprise a tiny fraction of the overall mix, but since wells are injected with millions of gallons of fluid, the mix can include thousands of gallons of a chemical that can be toxic at low doses.

Deciding what’s hazardous
Colborn and other toxicologists say one area of concern involves how “nonhazardous” chemicals are treated. Pennsylvania, Michigan and the FracFocus web site only disclose hazardous substances as determined by a product’s Material Safety Data Sheet.

Chemical manufacturers are required to list health hazards and ingredients that contribute to those hazards on these sheets, which are filed with the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration.

The sheets don’t have to list ingredients that are not considered hazardous, however, or chemicals that may damage the environment but haven’t been shown to harm humans. In determining what to report, manufacturers are not required to do their own testing and may rely on existing research that many toxicologists consider inadequate.

“We have just extraordinarily poor information on the whole portfolio of health effects that are possible from industrial chemicals,” said Michael Wilson, director of the Labor Occupational Health Program at the University of California, Berkeley. “In the great majority of cases, that information is not going to appear on a [Material Safety Data Sheet], in most cases because it’s not known.”

OSHA acknowledged as much in a 2004 report on chemical hazard communication [7]. “Even the best available evidence may not provide sufficient information about the hazardous effects or the way to protect someone from experiencing them,” the report said. The report noted in particular a lack of research on chronic health effects.

Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, a drilling industry group, said chemical suppliers evaluate every product, so if an ingredient doesn’t make it onto an safety data sheet, it doesn’t pose a threat to human health. ”That’s why it’s nonhazardous,” he said.

There are more than 80,000 chemicals registered for commercial use with the EPA, and Wilson said there is enough research to identify potential hazards for less than 2 percent of them.

Researchers with TEDX, Colborn’s organization, have reviewed Material Safety Data Sheets for 980 products used in natural gas production [8] and found that for more than 400 of them, manufacturers listed less than 1 percent of the product’s total composition.

“What’s there is what the product manufacturer wants you to know,” Colborn said. Without knowing all the ingredients, she said, it’s impossible to anticipate the chemical reactions that can occur as the products mix and react not only with each other but with whatever is present underground.

Volume, concentration are keys
Colborn and others say that knowing the concentration or volume of the individual components is also important to measure toxicity, and because various concentrations may behave differently as chemicals break down and react with others underground.

Texas, Arkansas and Wyoming, while requiring disclosure of all chemicals used, do not require companies to provide the concentrations.

The federal government regulates oil and gas drilling only on federal lands, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in November that he was considering requiring disclosure of fracking fluids for wells under federal jurisdiction. No action has been taken so far.

Some environmental groups and members of Congress have pushed for a nationwide database. Currently, drillers are not required to report fracking chemicals to the federal government unless they contain diesel, but the proposed FRAC Act [9] would require disclosure across the country.

So far, more than 40 oil and gas companies are voluntarily disclosing some of their chemicals on the FracFocus [2] website. Using the site, anyone can identify individual wells and find out the hazardous chemicals that were injected into them, including the maximum concentration at which they were used.

Mike Paque, executive director of the Ground Water Protection Council, an association of state regulators that is overseeing the site, said the organization is discussing whether to expand the disclosures to include nonhazardous chemicals. The site does not list proprietary chemicals, although it notes when they are us [10]ed. (See our annotated fracking disclosure form [11] for a closer look.)


Chart: States With Drilling Disclosure Rules
Five states have passed laws or administrative rules requiring drilling companies to reveal some of the chemicals they use when injecting fluids to free natural gas and oil from underground rock formations.
 

State
What's reported
Volume or
concentration used
Proprietary
chemicals
Posted online
Wyoming*
All chemicals used in fracking.
Volume & concentration of products disclosed, but not individual ingredients in chemical mixtures.
Disclosed to regulators; secret to the public.
Yes, via state website.





Arkansas
All chemicals used in fracking.
No.
Exempt.
Yes, via state website.





Pennsylvania
All hazardous chemicals used at an individual well after fracking is complete.
For hazardous chemicals only.
Unclear.**
No; available by request.





Michigan
Must submit Material Safety Data Sheets for hazardous chemicals.
For hazardous chemicals only.
Exempt.
Yes, via state website.
Texas***
All chemicals used in fracking.
For hazardous chemicals only.
To be determined.
Yes, via state website and FracFocus, an industry website.
* Wyoming was the first state to require disclosure of fracking fluids.
** Pennsylvania officials did not return calls or e-mails seeking clarification.
*** The Texas legislature passed the law in May 2011, but state regulators have until 2013 to complete the actual rules.

Source: Reporting by Nicholas Kusnetz/ProPublica

Monday, March 21, 2011

Supreme Court denies banking group’s appeal to withhold Fed lending data


By Eric W. Dolan - Monday, March 21st, 2011

The Supreme Court let stand a ruling that the U.S. Federal Reserve must release data on emergency loans made to Wall Street banks during the financial crisis in 2008.

The high court declined to hear the appeals of the Clearing House Association, a group that represents major commercial banks such as Bank of America and JPMorgan. The group was seeking to reverse a ruling by a federal appeals court that ordered the Federal Reserve to disclose details about the central bank's emergency lending.

At issue were lawsuits by Bloomberg News and Fox Business Network that claimed the Federal Reserve was required to disclose details of the economic bailout under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

FOIA requires federal agencies to make government documents publicly available upon request, but contains various exemptions to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.

"We are disappointed that the Court has declined our petitions, which deal with the protection of highly confidential bank information provided to the Federal Reserve," the Clearing House Association said in a statement. "Fortunately, Congress was well aware of the sensitivity of disclosing this information. As part of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress adopted a specific rule to ensure that in the future this confidential information will not be disclosed prematurely to the detriment of our financial system."

The Federal Reserve Board said it would comply with the court's order and was preparing to make the information available.

In recent rulings concerning the FOIA, the Supreme Court has upheld the public's right to access government information.

The Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that AT&T could not use personal privacy exemptions in the act to prevent the disclosure of federal government documents about the company. The high court also ruled that the government could not use an exemption in FOIA to withhold certain Navy maps and data from the public.