In a recent post here, I described an event that I produced in Syracuse, New York, which brought together disparate anti-fracking groups for a screening of Josh Fox's documentary film Gasland. As one would expect, among the readers who posted here there was a strong level of both support for the event (and any anti-fracking advocacy) and critiques of our effort, typically from gas industry functionaries or labor that supports hydraulic fracturing on behalf of jobs.
Many pro-fracking people posted attacks on Fox and his film, going so far as to state, in no uncertain terms, that his film has been widely and undeniably dismissed for lacking in accurate facts, science and history. I contacted Fox, by email, and asked him to provide me with more information to address the "deniers" who have debunked his assertions.
Josh Fox forwarded to me a detailed response that included the following links:
1- This 2009 piece from ProPublica that refers to a Garfield County, Colorado, study that contradicts certain gas industry assertions about methane in drinking water.
2- This 2011 report from Scientific American that describes significant aquifer contamination from fracking fluids in Wyoming.
3- A 2011 New York Times article that refers to the potential "first crack in the armor" of Rex Tillerson's claims about fracking-related contamination.
4- This article from Food and Water Watch in April of 2012.
5- And this article from a March, 2012 issue of Rolling Stone.
I've got more if you want it.
I am quite certain that not many minds will be changed here. There are those who believe natural gas is abundant and readily accessible through fracking, that it will create lots of good paying jobs and will contribute to America's energy independence.
Then there are those who believe that fracking is actually the energy industry's most recent opportunity to do to Americans what these companies have been doing to other, economically impoverished and less politically sophisticated peoples all over the globe: to promise them some economic benefit, deliver a pittance in actual compensation, desecrate their environment and then split and leave them the bill.
Unfortunately, in this case, it's not like Shell in Nigeria or Chevron in Ecuador. It's here. In New York State and Pennsylvania and many other areas. And when the gas companies are done blasting and pumping and contaminating, after they've put the gas on the open market and sold it and the workers head home to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, who do you think they'll hand the bill to for the clean up of that mess? Who will be asked to provide water for cooking, cleaning and drinking for all of those affected?
Gas companies, like LNG, will make huge profits. And what will you get?
Brendan DeMelle: A 'War on Shale Gas'?
Can someone recommend a source(s) of information that would be both reputable and not have a conflict of interest in this to read on? (As long as I do not need to be a physicist to understand it.) Is any contamination that may happen a extremely rare occurrence, does the product get used domestically, what is the risk/reward? Nothing alarmist please just a reputable non biased study.
If you don't believe me, go to youtube and search "Tap Water on Fire".
Or better yet, go here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrcdQRjdq1Y
http://www.alternet.org/fracking/toxic-wastewater-dumped-streets-and-rivers-night-gas-profiteers-getting-away-shocking?paging=off
The first summary conclusion listed in that study states quite clearly: “Impacts from petroleum activity are not currently present at levels that exceed regulatory limits.” Why does it not surprise us that this is SOP indicative of what opponents routinely try to hide from the public: Namely, that the presence of a particular substance does not necessarily indicate a threat.
It’s the exposure or concentration that determines whether something is toxic or unsafe. For just one example, hydrochloric acid would burn someone’s skin if applied directly, yet it’s one of the most common chemicals added to swimming pools
Also, your quote about workers going back to Texlahoma seems dismissive of the region. I'm a Texan who is from Louisiana, but I happen to be a big fan of your neck of the woods, Alec. Maybe you should spend more time down here and see what cities in those three states have to offer. There is only one New York, of course, but there's also only one New Orleans.
Just a small sample of the errors, distortions and misrepresentations in Gasland:
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/09/23/fracking-the-lies-of-the-gasland-documentary/
Are we to rely on the expertise of someone who lacks the intellectual capacity to recognize the errors in gasland - yet those same people embrace Gasland.
While it's easy to throw rocks at others, Joe, maybe you can tell us the difference between biogenic methane and the methane released from fracked wells. Also, feel free to explain how we can tell the difference between the two types.
Thanks!
The truth is that shale gas development has proven to be more successful than even its early proponent believed it would be. The Marcellus shale is now the largest producing gas field in the country and is producing about 10% of US natural gas. The three largest shale gas fields today supply on the order of 30% of our natural gas. Oil and gas companies are going to be blasting and pumping for a long time.
Despite the real problems (methane migration, surface spills etc) , the idea that natural gas (fracking) may be part of the answer rather than the problem is compelling. US carbon emissions have been dropping dramatically in 2012 and are reported to be at or near 1990 levels today primarily due to reduced use of coal in electricity generation which is a direct result of low priced natural gas from shales. I am not sold on market driven solutions always being the answer, but when the private sector and the market do create an opening to solve a problem, should we deny it because we preferred a regulatory approach? In addition, given the outrageous cost in blood and treasure of our last 10 years of war, any path to energy independence is worth considerations. Even if fracking were to be proven as awful as Mr. Fox claims, isn't it worth considering whether it might be a lesser evil than war and global warming?
Where is conservation? Isn't that the real premise of the Conservative movement?
We have entered into the world where cars rule, our dependence upon oil is insatiable, and we only have a finite amount of the black gold. What will happen when the oil and gas are gone? Due to our dependence of it, its loss will be catastrophic. How can we do that to our descendents?
Native Americans have a philosophy of making decisions after looking ahead 7 generations. We have not learned from them one blessed thing. We don't even look ahead 3 months, much less one generation, much less 7.
Thank you for your article on this issue and maybe we shall overcome... someday. If not, we took the correct stand and fought the ethical fight... with words.
Think of how you would enjoy it if they came to your area and polluted your water sources. You can read in your local paper about water quality results that make you cringe...
There is a significant likelihood that the scene was contrived and/or fabricated
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2010/04/22/slurring-natural-gas-with-flaming-faucets-and-other-propaganda/
Alberta water
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/news/2011/06/12/burning-water-alberta-leads-lawsuit-fracking
Let's step back and look at reality!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-2012_n_1792167.html
We are at a 20 year low in CO2 emissions! We are much closer to reaching the Kyoto Accords without signing than the Canadians who did sign!
Why you ask? Partly because we shipped our manufacturing off shore to China to get away from the NIMBY Environmentalist like Alex Baldwin. Party because of natural gas replacing coal! China last year burnt 49+% of all the coal consumed on the planet and you NIMBY Environmentalist can't hide that with per capita!
OH!!! The NIMBY Anti-Fracking Environmentalist say you can't live without water!
I say even if that were true which it is not. Fracking rarely I mean to the point of winning the lottery type odds contaminates ground water! You only bought us 18 more days because per the survival rule of 3 you can only live 3 minutes without air, three days without water, and only 3 weeks without food!
We have 50+% of our recent graduates either underemployed or unemploted because 33+% of our manufacturing jobs are gone!
And why is that? Energy cost!
Who really thinks highly automated low labor cost companies like Solyndra, Spectrawatt and Evergreen Solar went out of business competing with the Chinese because of labor cost? Energy cost, Energy cost, Energy cost, how many times does one have to repeat this!
http://news.yahoo.com/little-rock-law-firm-investigating-arkansas-fracking-hydraulic-070816123.html
Seriously?
Are you getting a cut?
the Chinese worked for, which was 1/12th of what an American will work for.
And Myanmar will provide workers for SAFTA factories for 1/6th of Viet Nam.
Just as an example, WalMart buys pre-bar coded and labeled TWELVE
PACKS ready to peg up, for the same price they charge you for one pack.
It's all about Free Tearrorism, ... and they still want a US taxpayer subsidy!!!
We are paying $100 BILLION a year in oil depletion allowance tax credits to
these companies are they are pulling in the greatest profits in human history!
Do you have a clue how much hydro power Vietnam has? That's cheaper than coal!
So push the labor cost but either you are a Wall Street Crony or a Wall Stre e Stooge!