Gasland Debunked

If this has already been posted, please let me know (and close). I searched several ways, and was really surprised to not find it yet.

The WSJ has published an article that debunks the Gasland documentary, and explains why fracking is not the evil that is claimed. My family is supported by the oil industry, but we aren't kool-aid drinkers. We know that oil companies run amock, and firmly believe that responsibility is #1 and must usually be enforced (oil companies don't do the right thing unless you make them!).

That said, here are the facts. I'm pointing out a few of the most important ones, but I really recommend you read the link for yourself.

Contaminated Drinking Water?

The problem with this argument is that the average shale formation is thousands of feet underground, while the average drinking well or aquifer is a few hundred feet deep. Separating the two is solid rock. This geological reality explains why EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, a determined enemy of fossil fuels, recently told Congress that there have been no "proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water."

Methane in Drinking Water?

They failed to note that researchers sampled a mere 68 wells across Pennsylvania and New York—where more than 20,000 water wells are drilled annually. They had no baseline data and thus no way of knowing if methane concentrations were high prior to drilling. They also acknowledged that methane was detected in 85% of the wells they tested, regardless of drilling operations, and that they'd found no trace of fracking fluids in any wells.

This is something we have seen OVER and OVER with environmentalists. They have NO scruples about lying, about not using the scientific method, whatever it takes. There's a difference between responsible forward momentum and blind obstructionism.

Fracking & Cancer?

In Dish, Texas, where the mayor moved away and claimed the gas wells were releasing toxic benzene into the environment. Tests showed that the only residents who had above-normal benzene were smokers (cigarettes contain benzene).

Unregulated?

Environmentalists claim oil companies are exempt from the federal Safe Water Act. This is FALSE. See again my comments under "methane". Environmentalists have NO problem lying whenever it suits them.

Summary

The question for the rest of us is whether we are serious about domestic energy production. All forms of energy have risks and environmental costs, not least wind (noise and dead birds and bats) and solar (vast expanses of land). Yet renewables are nowhere close to supplying enough energy, even with large subsidies, to maintain America's standard of living. The shale gas and oil boom is the result of U.S. business innovation and risk-taking. If we let the fear of undocumented pollution kill this boom, we will deserve our fate as a second-class industrial power.

My Opinion
Is the environment an utmost priority? YES. Does drilling pose a risk to the environment? YES. So do many other things. Driving your car, buying plastics, having children. If you really want to stop forward movement in drilling, you're going to have to get on board with serious population control. Or decide which among us should stop having access to modern technology. Should we continue looking for alternatives to oil? DUH, OF COURSE! Should we continue to watch oil companies like hawks and assume they're misbehaving until they prove otherwise? YES.

BUT... fracking in itself is no more a risk than everything else involved in drilling. Simple drilling mud is a bigger problem than fracking fluid. To focus on fracking to the exclusion of everything else is really ignorant.

Until we find something better, which we need to do quickly, oil is what we've got. We must be responsible as we find a way forward - but not ignorantly obstructionist.

And any good conspiracy theorist must realize that environmental groups are just as greedy & dishonest as your average oil company. Compare them to your average church: it's real easy to rip people off when you have the appearance of right on your side. I've seen environmental groups cause terrible damage to communities for NO good reason. They should be treated with suspicion, just as the oil companies should be. The best position is somewhere in the middle of the two extreme viewpoints these two groups have.

reply to post by Schkeptick

My family is supported by the oil industry,

Enough said.
Sure Dick Cheney can afford the best debunkers money can buy. Of course I am not saying you are but just saying he can and this story is probably a propaganda piece.

Fracking is an evil misuse of the planet and poses a real hazard to humans and wildlife as well as to the natural geography of an area resulting in soil erosion and landslides making fertile, serene mountainsides end up looking like scarred earth and scalped heads after wards.

Greed and nothing but greed and the need for more and more sources of fossil fuels, the very thing that causes even more destruction by burning them. Fracking is a lose, lose situation and prospect...unless you are in the biz.

reply to post by Schkeptick


Schkeptick

I posted this Gasland story a while ago but it is interesting to read the 'otherside' from you.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do not know much about this (i am NOT a geologist or Miner etc ) and maybe the film sensationlises the problem BUT recently in the UK they stopped the Fracking or drilling up in the North West near Blackpool I think because of the unusual number of small tremours (quakes ?) and other issues..........

I just think the more we humans mess around with stuff we fully do not know the impact of then the more 'potential ' for problem later...

regards

PDUK

reply to post by newcovenant


That's the thing... plain old drilling is a bigger danger than fracking. To focus on fracking shows immense ignorance of the industry. It's like deciding NASA should be shut down because the waiting room carpet in one building is the wrong color. Fracking is an extremely small part of drilling, and most of the evidence against it has been FABRICATED. But I can tell you didn't read the article, just knee-jerk reacted, so...

If you buy the environmentalist line without giving it the same rational thought you would give anything else, you're also being naive. They have an agenda just like the oil companies do, and it isn't all for good.




reply to post by PurpleDog UK


I can't speak to tremors. It may be that fracking isn't appropriate everywhere. That's a different issue, and one worth studying.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Schkeptick

 

My family is supported by the oil industry,

Enough said.
Sure Dick Cheney can afford the best debunkers money can buy. Of course I am not saying you are but just saying he can and this story is probably a propaganda piece.

Fracking is an evil misuse of the planet and poses a real hazard to humans and wildlife as well as to the natural geography of an area resulting in soil erosion and landslides making fertile, serene mountainsides end up looking like scarred earth and scalped heads after wards.

Greed and nothing but greed and the need for more and more sources of fossil fuels, the very thing that causes even more destruction by burning them. Fracking is a lose, lose situation and prospect...unless you are in the biz.

edit on 4-7-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

Ok so you have stopped using any products resulting from the evil uses of the oil industry? No gas for your car? No Oil or gas to heat your home? No plastic water bottles or shopping bags? No plastic parts for your computer? No synthetic clothes?
The horrid 'misuse' of the planet will not stop until people stop using the products.

reply to post by Schkeptick

That's the thing... plain old drilling is a bigger danger than fracking. To focus on fracking shows immense ignorance of the industry. It's like deciding NASA should be shut down because the waiting room carpet in one building is the wrong color. Fracking is an extremely small part of drilling, and most of the evidence against it has been FABRICATED. But I can tell you didn't read the article, just knee-jerk reacted, so... If you buy the environmentalist line without giving it the same rational thought you would give anything else, you're also being naive. They have an agenda just like the oil companies do, and it isn't all for good.

Fair enough. You are right I didn't read the entire article because I have some information on fracking already. Fracking took a park in NY State some of us frequented as kids and so its a sore spot. Dick Cheney has some interest in fracking and I categorically reject all things Tatooine.

I need to know more about this dastardly agenda you accuse the environmentalist of.
Besides saving the planet and diversity of life on it for future generations what the heck are they after?

reply to post by Chett

The horrid 'misuse' of the planet will not stop until people stop using the products.

Easier said than done.

Eliminate the need for the product.
Create bio degradable replacements for the product
Build things to be permanent and not disposable
and don't make the long lasting one cost the most.

Educate the public on harm to the planet.
Need to appeal to corporations and work hand in hand to change packaging and demand enviro-friendly products. They do it for other countries and they can do it for the US.

reply to post by Chett


Public transportation, high speed rail, electric cars, and creative research and innovation by some group on the side of the people toward alternative engine technology, water fuel power, anti gravity, free energy et at. since having a good idea is not enough.
You have to own the idea.


We the people, have to own the idea or we will get screwed in royalties and/or the great ideas will be shelved to maintain the status quo. Last I heard oil companies weren't doing too bad this recession.

reply to post by Schkeptick


I would debunk the story of debunking Gasland because I know of the research and independant lab tests that went in to the documentary of Gasland and can not be ignored.

The same with Firewater.

I wonder who wrote the article?

Select some of the text from the article google it - thousands of hits in right wing blogs and jounals. This will be gospel in a week

I wonder who wrote the ariticle?

Fracking needs alot more research before it's allowed full force. Thankfully the epa is taking steps in this regard.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Schkeptick

Hey Schkep,
I do like how you are trying to say let's all meet in the middle. It's a very admirable position to take. Also, you get bonus stars for having the Huevos to say you get your daily bread from the oil companies and know they are corrupt. Takes some stones. I have not read the article. Sorry, i just can't believe the source to give a balanced look at anything in a scientific fashion. Maybe 30-40 years ago the wall street journal had some credibility so investors could be well informed, but nowadays...doesn't Rupert "news corp" Murdoch own the rag now? And we all know how he holds all information that comes out of his "news" organizations to high journalistic standards in order to create "balance".
Do I think gasland may be grandstanding? Of course, it has to be sensationalized in order to make money for investors who backed it and therein lies the rub.
There's a common enemy of people on both sides of this issue, the financiers who play both sides against each other in order to create yet another market to sell books and dvds to people who want to argue back and forth as to who is right.

reply to post by the owlbear


You are the first person to read this as it was intended. Thank you.

I look forward to a day when we find independence from oil. But you can't wish it or dream it into fact - you have to make it so. So far, no one has.

Originally posted by newcovenant
Easier said than done.

Eliminate the need for the product.
Create bio degradable replacements for the product
Build things to be permanent and not disposable
and don't make the long lasting one cost the most.

Educate the public on harm to the planet.
Need to appeal to corporations and work hand in hand to change packaging and demand enviro-friendly products. They do it for other countries and they can do it for the US.

The long-lasting product costs more because it was more expensive to make.

I vote with my dollars all the time. We're very environmental in this family. Where other people are going on about recycling (we did that also when it was possible; it isn't now) - we were eliminating as many purchases of packaged things as possible. We gave our business to places that packaged differently (Fry's uses reusable large plastic boxes to protect small, expensive items from theft, for example). Everyone has their own reusable water bottle and the kids run for theirs when we're going on a car trip. I'm constantly thinking about how we can make it so that less goes in the trashcan every day.

I've been surprised how wasteful many countries are, actually. The middle east is an environmental disaster. There's no recycling here at all where I live. When we have been in Europe we've been appalled at things that have been discontinued in the US, even. Europe is not as far ahead of the US as you would think.

But I agree with your ideas. Why aren't we demanding these things? Start with what's possible on a personal level.

reply to post by newcovenant


If you want the truth about the environmenalist agenda and who these people are you should read "Apocalypse Not" by Dixie Lee Ray. There you will find that most of the radical environmentalists were communist/marxists that joined the movement after the fall of the Soviet Union to have a platform to continue their work. Mark Whittle stated it best when he decsribed their ilk as oikiphobics. I know it is hard for disciples of the Secular Socialist to question their faith, but the Dixie Lee Ray book really shows the players and where they came from.

The best position is somewhere in the middle of the two extreme viewpoints these two groups have.

A better position is to look past opinions and get to the facts. A lot of large organisations do have a tendency to politicalize issues and get caught up with intricate relationships, financial needs and conflicts of interest. It does depend on the issue as to how much integrity, trust and capability should be placed into an organisations public documentation and direction.

Gasland does a very good job in getting to the local sources and produces strong evidence. It is one thing to say that the oil and gas industry does have some problems, but then failing to acknowledge them comes across a little confused. The cover up with the implications of corexit in deep horizon disaster is just one of many examples of limited corporate responsibility backed by government. At the extreme ends we have oil as the reasons for the Iraq invasion with the WMD argument seriously flawed.

Yes there is a huge benefit to the ongoing supply of oil and gas to a nation that is dependant on it, there is also a growing social and environmental cost associated to this as well. As a culture that looks to the bottom line in making decisions I do want to see improved accounting and responsibility of all the implications, not just the short term corporate ones.

Yea, and smoking doesn't cause cancer either...

It's a proven tactic to muddy up an issue by cherry picking topics to refute an issue.

Saying that data is invalid since there isn't a baseline to compare against is lame.
They're ignoring personal testimony that there have been changes since there wasn't an official study done.
An eyewitness can put someone in prison why can't they testify with the same impact in this case?

Originally posted by LazyGuy
Saying that data is invalid since there isn't a baseline to compare against is lame.

It isn't lame at all. We saw the same thing happen in New Mexico. Environmentalists from another state did tests and start yelling about arsenic in the production mud.

This went before the state legislature & what was never allowed was the opposing viewpoint: that drilling does not introduce arsenic, and that the arsenic they found was already present in the soil.

The same is true of Gasland - a lot of the "evidence" would not stand up to scientific inquiry.

It's all a political farce. And people buy the lies they're spoon-fed. The same people who refuse to believe anything the government says will totally believe an environmental group & not question anything. It's like a bad joke.

WSJ ? thats rupert murdoch's propaganda paper ,the same oligarch who owns fox news and a ultra zionist. So, chett and Gopconvenant don't take WSJ seriously its corporate propaganda.

as for fracking ,with the current chemicals of Halliburton ,it is poisonous like it or not , it is the conclusion of EU authorities thats why France suspended it . Schlumberger is working on less harmful and greener alternatives of fracking chemicals and also Rusnano , which simultaneous developing deep gas and geopressurized gas extraction tech.

reply to post by newcovenant


I guess you nailed it , newconvenant.