Original Post: Published on: Sep 11, 2010 @ 20:58
So, I have started a few different post on Gasland and have never got around to finishing one because I typically get frustrated when I read peoples comments on the topic. Industry has tackled the mythbuster portion of gasland, but the public seem more happy to listen to lies, misinformation, and utter stupidity than the facts. http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/
I have come to realize that the anti-fracking movement is largely composed of conspiracy theorists and super environmentalists. Even when presented with facts they believe that they are being fed lies because the answers can only come from the companies that they are attacking.
If you haven’t watched gasland jumping through this clip will give you a relatively good idea of its content.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/613/index.html
Assuming you watched the video and came back you may have sided with Fox because something about his voice compels you trust what he is saying. Unfortunately, he doesn’t know what he is talking about, and he makes it sound like fracking is something that is new or not well understood which is simply untrue. The process has been used for more than 30 years and the processes is much safer than it has ever been.
The only thing that I will give Fox credit for is that he may have uncovered a few cases where oil companies screwed up, but most of his documentary was totally debunked by energyindepth who showed that most were documented cases. Fracking technology is proven, and it is up to the states to properly regulate hydraulic fracturing. Fox also makes the claim that is is fairly common to be able to light you water on fire in areas where natural gas drilling is taking place and blames it on fracking. In part that is a true statement, but in reality it probably has nothing to do with fracking, and before his “documentary” came out it was relatively easy to research but that information has been replaced with a load of garbage. Many people around the country can light their water on fire and that was one way to find natural gas in the past. After this film came out lots of people tried to light their water on fire and found that it could in fact be lit so it was naturally the oil companies fault. Now everyone seems to think that the oil companies caused all the problems. This is especially true in Eastern Wyoming and parts of Colorado where people draw water out of coal seams. Natural gas will dissolve in water naturally and when it is depressurized it will come out of solution just like taking to top off a bottle of pop. Production causes a pressure drop which causes the gas to come out of solution. Fracing is not the direct cause of the problem. For the recorded oil companies probably shouldn’t have fracked so shallow, that said I am sure some cases were caused by oil companies, but that would have to be investigated on a case by case basis and does not represent an industry wide problem. A few bad frack jobs are not going to cause massive water problems that will affect large numbers of people because any chemicals that make it into ground or surface water will get diluted. Personally, I have a feeling that the run off from parking lots and the stuff that comes out of storm drains in any city is probably a lot worse for the environment than fracking fluid. People are just looking for a scapegoat.
Every video on the internet that involves burning water coming from a faucet now seem to have some reference to gasland in the comments section, and blame firmly pointed at the gas companies. Biogenic gas is something that our good friend Mr. Fox totally missed, and may explain several of the cases where he showed people lighting their water faucets on fire, and has absolutely nothing to do will oil and gas drilling. The information on this page may help you understand how widespread biogenic gas in water wells actually is. https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/shallowgas/sgasnew.asp North Dakota is the only state where I have found a study on the topic, but I am sure several other states have similar information available. The point is that gas in water wells is not at all uncommon.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Update: Incorporating the first two comments. I function a bit better when I have questions to answer.
Angela Monti fox says:
Hi, Your use if these derogatory words, “Josh Fox is full of shit” to express your dislike for GASLAND, shows your ignorance of facts and inability to put forth valid intelligent arguments against fracking.
In fact when you do develop an argument with some degree of intelligent comment, your statements actually prove rather then disprove some of the main points of the movie. For example: “it is up to the states to properly regulate hydraulic fracturing”. Yes, this is exactly one of the points made in the movie. However, states are “unable” to regulate because the toxic formulas have been kept secret (point #1) made in the movie, (point 2) the states are inadequately staffed to properly investigate and regulate. (Point 3) the federal government has enabled the oil and gas industry to wreck havoc on lives, land, water and air by the creation of “loopholes” in the law that enable the industry to be “exempt from the clean water-clean air act and the super fund law that requires the industry to clean up their mess.
Next, your statement “I’m sure some cases (of water contamination) were caused by oil companies”; The fact that you site these events as insignificant show your lack of regard for human life in general. Even if only some cases are caused by the production of natural gas those people’s lives are just as important as yours. In addition, the cases shown in the movie are simply EXAMPLES! THERE IS MUCH MORE FOOTAGE AND MANY MORE PEOPLE IF YOU CARE TO LOOK.
One wonders what your motivation is for taking the position you have taken and to be so seemingly angry about this movie. Have you leased your land? Are you invested in natural gas? Why would you be particularly angry with Josh Fox as to say he is “full of shit”? This shows your crudeness and your inability to actually make a rational argument against the movie.
In addition, we understand why the natural gas industry has tried to “debunk” the movie; simply because were the federal government to reinstate the protection of our air and water, and reinstate the “super fund” law making the oil and gas industry responsible for the damage they cause, the industry would not be profitable. Were it to be no longer profitable to produce natural gas through this method the industry might then look to alternative non fossil fuels. This is not a conspiracy theory and to link that movement to this movie is bizarre and absurd. Are all the people at Sundance, and HBO part of that conspiracy?
My Rebuttal:
Ben says:
I feel that Josh Fox is intentionally misleading the public by either totally misstating facts our outright lying. I am not against proper regulation of fracking, but pushing people to fear fracking is ridiculous.
My Break Down For you:
Point 1 response:
“formulas have been kept secret” –True, but the ingredients are not secret.
Many of the things in frack water are bad for the environment, but it is nearly impossible for frack water to mix with drinking water or anything on the surface as long as it is properly handled and disposed of. (Most often the water is re-inject far below any potential drinking water.)
States are NOT “unable” to regulate the oil and gas industry in their respective states (that idea is insulting). Most states are able to handle regulating the oil and gas industry within their respective states. States that have trouble regulating the oil and gas industry are improperly utilizing tax dollars they make from drilling which is a problem the state needs to fix and not the federal government.
Point 2 response:
The federal government is even more inadequately staffed to properly investigate and regulate the oil and gas industry. A very deep understanding of local geology is a must, and can not be painted with a broad brush which is what the federal government likes to do. In order for the fed to be affective they would be forced to contract out the work which is something the states could also do.
Point 3 Response:
I sort of agree with you, but that is a whole different issue, and I also think it points to state regulation as an option.
Personal Attacks Response:
“The fact that you site these events as insignificant show your lack of regard for human life in general.”
I don’t feel that they are insignificant. The oil companies should be forced to provide alternatives if they really were the cause.There is no real fix for totally botched frac jobs so significant effort needs to be taken to make sure that they do not happen. Obviously, the goal is to have no failed frack jobs, but bad things can happen. Lucky for the world, the incentive is economic rather than an imposed regulation. No oil company wants to absorb the loss of a 5 million dollar well which can be the result of a failed frack job.
Also, I do value having lights and driving, and other alternatives are not yet available. We can get oil and gas from other parts of the world, but your stance on the topic is really it is just a case of not in my back yard. We have one of the best developed horizontal fracking programs in the world and it will have a long term affect on the quality of life for our country as a whole.
– I do not own land that is leased, and I never will be unless something amazing is developed for gasifying deep coal in place. (The technology does exist but will serve no purpose in the near-term)
– I am not invested in natural gas in any way. (I simply choose to defend the lesser evil)
* I feel that fracking will be important in the future because it is better than buying oil and gas from countries that hate us. (I am not an energy independence crackpot, but everything makes some difference)
* fracking/natural gas is better for the environment than most alternatives, and it is most cost effective
– Tar sands are going to get bigger
– Near surface oil shale is a dumb idea because of the amount of water it takes, and it is mostly found in arid regions
– Most countries with the exception of a few have even less regulation that we do.
I said Josh Fox is full of shit because I think he is, and I would probably tell him so in person as well provide a lengthy geology lesson. Why do you feel that we need to live in such a politically correct world? Does my foul language really hurt you? Based on your name I assume you may be related to Mr. Fox so it probably does offend you, but the statement was mostly used as an attention grabber and it must have worked.
I am angry with Fox because he blatantly lies to push his own agenda.(I feel he is enjoying being famous) The reality is that fracking is fairly safe, and oil companies go to great lengths to not frack into formations that have a lot of water. (Not to say mistakes are not made). I present a basic geology lesson for anyone who may have read this far. Shales are really lithified clays, and clays generally swell if they are exposed to water which close fractures and reduces gas and oil production.(Chemicals are partly used to reduce this affect) In addition, shales typically contain laminated layers so when high pressure fluids are pumped down hole the natural tendency of the shale is to fracture alone the laminations because that is typically the weakest point. HOWEVER, the natural existing stress fields in rocks almost always cause significant vertical fractures which is usually the intended goal of fracking. Fractures fluid should not be able to make it anywhere near the water table because there is a pressure drop as you move away from your injection site point below the surface. Note: There are even more reasons as to why Fracking works and is safe but that is going to require its own post.
Industry has no real reason to be worried about the super fund law, but they are worried about unnecessary regulation and bans/moratoriums on fracking. (Utter stupidity, like what has been seen by the state of New York.) Profitability will not be affected as long as fracking is allowed to continue. Without fracking producing gas from shale formations is not an option.
Non-fossil fuels are decades out. -Fact
I still invest in them, but the technology isn’t there yet.
–The electrical grid needs an upgrade and there will need to be a redistribution of power generation.
–People need to start generating their own power.
Both will likely be the part of the solution, but cheap natural gas will push those technologies farther off into the future.
I did not mean to imply that this is a conspiracy theory. (I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion) The meaning of that statement is that even when people are presented with facts they think it is just the big bad oil industry lying to them. The fact of the matter is that the oil industry is just trying to do damage control by releasing more information on fracking, and they are the ones who have all the data on the topic. I think HBO and Sundance 1. put it on the air because they believed a bunch of lies 2. wanted to capitalize on peoples lack of understanding of the topic.
Another little update: The following link is boring but informative video made by the shale gas industry that directly addresses peoples concerns with fracking, and it also brings to light what people may actually want to be concerned with. http://shalegasfuture.com/
Hi, Your use if these derogatory words, “Josh Fox is full of shit” to express your dislike for GASLAND, shows your ignorance of facts and inability to put forth valid intelligent arguments against fracking.
In fact when you do develop an argument with some degree of intelligent comment, your statements actually prove rather then disprove some of the main points of the movie. For example: “it is up to the states to properly regulate hydraulic fracturing”. Yes, this is exactly one of the points made in the movie. However, states are “unable” to regulate because the toxic formulas have been kept secret (point #1) made in the movie, (point 2) the states are inadequately staffed to properly investigate and regulate. (Point 3) the federal government has enabled the oil and gas industry to wreck havoc on lives, land, water and air by the creation of “loopholes” in the law that enable the industry to be “exempt from the clean water-clean air act and the super fund law that requires the industry to clean up their mess.
Next, your statement “I’m sure some cases (of water contamination) were caused by oil companies”; The fact that you site these events as insignificant show your lack of regard for human life in general. Even if only some cases are caused by the production of natural gas those people’s lives are just as important as yours. In addition, the cases shown in the movie are simply EXAMPLES! THERE IS MUCH MORE FOOTAGE AND MANY MORE PEOPLE IF YOU CARE TO LOOK.
One wonders what your motivation is for taking the position you have taken and to be so seemingly angry about this movie. Have you leased your land? Are you invested in natural gas? Why would you be particularly angry with Josh Fox as to say he is “full of shit”? This shows your crudeness and your inability to actually make a rational argument against the movie.
In addition, we understand why the natural gas industry has tried to “debunk” the movie; simply because were the federal government to reinstate the protection of our air and water, and reinstate the “super fund” law making the oil and gas industry responsible for the damage they cause, the industry would not be profitable. Were it to be no longer profitable to produce natural gas through this method the industry might then look to alternative non fossil fuels. This is not a conspiracy theory and to link that movement to this movie is bizarre and absurd. Are all the people at Sundance, and HBO part of that conspiracy?
.
I am a biologist/geologist and I have worked as a public servant with the Rocky Mountain Water Shed Watch for over 10 years and prior I worked for the Game and Fish dept. I too am concerned and welcome any credible science that can identify environmental problems. I guess where I have a serious credibility issue with Josh Fox “Gasland” documentary is where he states that the deer and antelope around Pinedale Wyoming are now on the endangered species list as a direct result from fracking. The deer and antelope are on no such list and Wyoming boast the largest antelope herd in North America. Josh fox next shows a Jonah gas well and cleverly edit fades to a pristine view of the Grand Tetons and mentions that these gas wells are nestled on the foothills of Grand Teton National Park. WTF! someone needs a geography lesson here. Most folks don’t know this area and react in total horror when led around by the nose. As a local I was offended at his blatant dis information and clever editing for total shock value. As a environmental scientist we write and critique studies and if you start off with lies, even if you add good credible data later, you have already discredited yourself and your cause. I guess I am tired of everything being dumbed down and staged like a bad reality show…we need some credible science even if it is dull and boring without all the bells and whistles so we can really identify a serious problem and soberly try to fix it. When fame seeking people knowingly add just one blatant lie to further their cause.. you have sold out completely. people like Josh Fox are looking for quick fame with sensationalism using shock tactics may have brought him fame and fortune but is counter productive for folks slogging it out in the field.. he could have made a credible documentary with some real science but he made a conscience decision to take the low road. This also goes for the oil field folks who say there has never been a bad fracking job ever! C’mon lets get real and stop the B.S. lies! I am amazed at the amount of dis information and how many folks swallow it all. More disturbing is to knowingly ignore a few lies as long as it furthers a passionate cause. This lowers the bar for real science credibility when we really need to fix a problem and educate the public. I bet you hear a lot of “yeah but” or “what about the guy who” when you bring these inconsistencies up to either side of the fence ..again totally ignoring that it is OK to lie as long as it furthers your own cause. Look at what the real cause for the BP Gulf disaster was…a bad cement casing job. That is what state and BLM compliance inspectors are now watching closely..proper casing jobs not as much with the fracking evolution and there is science and lots of data backing this critical procedure to be completed properly.
” Ernst Janning: Judge Haywood… the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people… I never knew it would come to that. You *must* believe it, *You must* believe it!
Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it came to that the *first time* you sentenced a man to death you *knew* to be innocent.”
I feel that Josh Fox is intentionally misleading the public by either totally misstating facts our outright lying. I am not against proper regulation of fracking, but pushing people to fear fracking is ridiculous.
My Break Down For you:
Point 1 response:
“formulas have been kept secret” –True, but the ingredients are not secret.
Many of the things in frack water are bad for the environment, but it is nearly impossible for frack water to mix with drinking water or anything on the surface as long as it is properly handled and disposed of. (Most often the water is re-inject far below any potential drinking water.)
States are NOT “unable” to regulate the oil and gas industry in their respective states (that idea is insulting). Most states are able to handle regulating the oil and gas industry within their respective states. States that have trouble regulating the oil and gas industry are improperly utilizing tax dollars they make from drilling which is a problem the state needs to fix and not the federal government.
Point 2 response:
The federal government is even more inadequately staffed to properly investigate and regulate the oil and gas industry. A very deep understanding of local geology is a must, and can not be painted with a broad brush which is what the federal government likes to do. In order for the fed to be affective they would be forced to contract out the work which is something the states could also do.
Point 3 Response:
I sort of agree with you, but that is a whole different issue, and I also think it points to state regulation as an option.
Personal Attacks Response:
“The fact that you site these events as insignificant show your lack of regard for human life in general.”
I don’t feel that they are insignificant. The oil companies should be forced to provide alternatives if they really were the cause.There is no real fix for totally botched frac jobs so significant effort needs to be taken to make sure that they do not happen. Obviously, the goal is to have no failed frack jobs, but bad things can happen. Lucky for the world, the incentive is economic rather than an imposed regulation. No oil company wants to absorb the loss of a 5 million dollar well which can be the result of a failed frack job.
Also, I do value having lights and driving, and other alternatives are not yet available. We can get oil and gas from other parts of the world, but your stance on the topic is really it is just a case of not in my back yard. We have one of the best developed horizontal fracking programs in the world and it will have a long term affect on the quality of life for our country as a whole.
– I do not own land that is leased, and I never will be unless something amazing is developed for gasifying deep coal in place. (The technology does exist but will serve no purpose in the near-term)
– I am not invested in natural gas in any way. (I simply choose to defend the lesser evil)
* I feel that fracking will be important in the future because it is better than buying oil and gas from countries that hate us. (I am not an energy independence crackpot, but everything makes some difference)
* fracking/natural gas is better for the environment than most alternatives, and it is most cost effective
– Tar sands are going to get bigger
– Near surface oil shale is a dumb idea because of the amount of water it takes, and it is mostly found in arid regions
– Most countries with the exception of a few have even less regulation that we do.
I said Josh Fox is full of shit because I think he is, and I would probably tell him so in person as well provide a lengthy geology lesson. Why do you feel that we need to live in such a politically correct world? Does my foul language really hurt you? Based on your name I assume you may be related to Mr. Fox so it probably does offend you, but the statement was mostly used as an attention grabber and it must have worked.
I am angry with Fox because he blatantly lies to push his own agenda.(I feel he is enjoying being famous) The reality is that fracking is fairly safe, and oil companies go to great lengths to not frack into formations that have a lot of water. (Not to say mistakes are not made). I present a basic geology lesson for anyone who may have read this far. Shales are really lithified clays, and clays generally swell if they are exposed to water which close fractures and reduces gas and oil production.(Chemicals are partly used to reduce this affect) In addition, shales typically contain laminated layers so when high pressure fluids are pumped down hole the natural tendency of the shale is to fracture alone the laminations because that is typically the weakest point. HOWEVER, the natural existing stress fields in rocks almost always cause significant vertical fractures which is usually the intended goal of fracking. Fractures fluid should not be able to make it anywhere near the water table because there is a pressure drop as you move away from your injection site point below the surface. Note: There are even more reasons as to why Fracking works and is safe but that is going to require its own post.
Industry has no real reason to be worried about the super fund law, but they are worried about unnecessary regulation and bans/moratoriums on fracking. (Utter stupidity, like what has been seen by the state of New York.) Profitability will not be affected as long as fracking is allowed to continue. Without fracking producing gas from shale formations is not an option.
Non-fossil fuels are decades out. -Fact
I still invest in them, but the technology isn’t there yet.
–The electrical grid needs an upgrade and there will need to be a redistribution of power generation.
–People need to start generating their own power.
Both will likely be the part of the solution, but cheap natural gas will push those technologies farther off into the future.
I did not mean to imply that this is a conspiracy theory. (I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion) The meaning of that statement is that even when people are presented with facts they think it is just the big bad oil industry lying to them. The fact of the matter is that the oil industry is just trying to do damage control by releasing more information on fracking, and they are the ones who have all the data on the topic. I think HBO and Sundance 1. put it on the air because they believed a bunch of lies 2. wanted to capitalize on peoples lack of understanding of the topic.
Intersting statements and I think your rebuttal was well scripted.
I still haven’t watched the show because I don’t have time for sillyness, but I really don’t see how anyone could take the ‘fracing is bad’ stance in this argument. If you’re going to pick an enemy in the oil and gas industry, start trying to fight brine disposal.
Oil and gas companies REALLY don’t want to frac into a formation with water. If they do, it won’t be an oil well, it will be a water well.
My partner and I really enjoyed reading this blog post, I was just itching to know do you trade featured posts? I am always trying to find someone to make trades with and merely thought I would ask.
.Marcellus Shale Fracking it is totally unnecessary as well as sheer waste of pristine waters beautiful forests and resources!.Bad as the GULF OIL SPILL is I strongly feel that allowing the POISONING of precious pristine River Water for fracking is potentially far FAR WORSE! In the first place if the choice came between drinking water that has not been subjected to the fracking process and supposed clean-up or a warmer building above 65F degrees and we are far better off with safer drinking water and cooler buildings and sweaters. If the Congressional Budget Office or any other unbiased facility were to determine TOTAL COSTfrom exploration to extraction delivery and use of gas including building maintaining roads destruction replacement of forest costs loss of Carbon-sequestering by lost forest destruction of landscape natural land use with possibly still undiscovered value undisturbed extraction water hauling water loss water re-cleaning for drinking loss of 40-60 of available ground water for 15 million people with growing-population water needs gas pipeline installation and maintenance plus concurrent destruction of forest and scenery added highway-use maintenance costs for exploring-construction-extraction-delivery phases etc. COST OF DEPLETED RESOURCES and enormous production of gHg throughout this process and compare such cost to the cost of developing installing and using either ground-source or geo-thermal systems for the same number of units I suspect that the per capita or per unit gas extraction delivery costs would exceed the cost of all ground-source geo-thermal systems installed as an alternative to gas.
.Marcellus Shale Fracking it is totally unnecessary as well as sheer waste of pristine waters beautiful forests and resources!
Natural gas is used for far more things than heating homes. There is a heavy commercial demand to create items such as:
Fertilizer
anti-freeze and other chemicals
diamond coatings
Power generation (combined cycle plants are very efficient).
No natural gas = poor, starving world.
As for forest being destroyed. The Mid-Atlantic and Northeast have far more forest cover than decades and especially a century ago. Modern fertilizers (from fossil fuels) and pesticides (again.. fossil fuels) created a agriculture revolution. You no longer needed to clear-cut forests in order to meet the food needs of a nation. Vermont and New Hampshire used to be almost all farmland, with wild turkeys and other life near extinction. Now Vermont is mostly forest.
I find it rather ironic that the people who are the most strongly opposed to anything are the people who are the most content with taking information from one (questionable) source. One will not find such loud voices of opposition among people with an understanding of geology and the methods of oil and gas production.
Documentaries (and I use that term generously in this case) like GasLand target emotions, not minds. Playing people’s emotions is easy, and and is the most efficient way of creating lasting publicity, and thus income. Factual information gathered from multiple reliable sources, having undergone extensive real-world testing and peer review is boring, and ignored by the target audiences of these kinds of films. Film-making is a business enterprise which requires significant investment, and if you want to profit, you have to connect with your audience emotionally. Feelings are remembered, information is forgotten quickly.
Keep that in mind before you let your emotions drive your decison-making.
And Monex, if you are concerned about water quality in that region, you should be targeting the coal industry, not the gas drillers. Plenty there to hate on. What the coal industry is doing in the eastern US has been likened to genocide, and it’s not such a far-reaching comparison, even to a pro-mining guy like myself. Burning coal (globally) is the main reason we have mercury in our lakes, rivers, and fish – see links below for source.
Balance the risk versus reward, and gas wins hands-down. Now, I don’t mean to say that gas is the answer. Just that your voice of opposition would be far better directed towards something that’s actually worth opposing.
Some stuff to get you started:
http://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htm
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/usa-coal-study-idUSN169888020110216
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6462-2004Aug16?language=printer