• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gasland’s Fracking Nonsense

Tony

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
15,410
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6609/Gaslands-Fracking-Nonsense

And the winner is...? Sadly, not the paying public for Josh Fox’s ludicrous Gasland – whether or not the Oscar-voting Hollywood panel are taken in by it. Well-crafted and amusingly presented Gasland is, by turns, dramatic, eloquent, congenial and emotional. But then so is Sesame Street. Call me old-school, but I look for context, balance and, above all, hard facts in my documentaries. Gasland has neither of the first two, and precious little of the third.

Gasland treads the same fear-inducing path of Al Gore’s Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth. It presents a simplistically stark contrast between the pristine wilderness (where our intrepid self-proclaimed hippie film-maker lives) and the dark mutilated moonscape (where ‘evil’ Big Gas is slowly poisoning natural water resources). As with Gore’s power-point ‘epic’ – later ripped apart in the factual stakes by a British high court judge – Gasland loses credibility from the start, as Debunking Gasland, a rebuttal report from Energy in Depth, on behalf of the nation’s gas and oil producers, revealed last summer.

Interesting piece that pokes holes in some of Gasland's claims.
 
I guess you've never driven by a fracking site eh.....

It's likely to become an environmental horror show and the companies are simply racing against time on legislation.

The nonsense is more from the EnergyTribune - that bastion of unbiased opinion on the matter,
You have some science to go with the polemic?
:garfield:
 
I find it hard to believe that the EPA (or other state agencies) from a multitude of states would allow this if they didn't truly believe it was safe. It implies that seemingly everyone in a position of power is corrupt.

I've tried to read both sides and I'm not sure who to believe at this point.
Here is the Debunking Gasland from Energy in Depth:
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

Here is Gasland's rebuttal:
http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf
 
I find it hard to believe that the EPA (or other state agencies) from a multitude of states would allow this if they didn't truly believe it was safe. It implies that seemingly everyone in a position of power is corrupt.

No it doesn't. It implies that environmental protection agencies are weak and underfunded in general (for example, the link that shows New Mexico has 18 inspectors to regulate almost 100000 wells), and that in this this certain exemptions to regulations were added to bills to further remove the process from scrutiny.

eta:
I haven't watched the documentary, but I've listen to interviews with the creator and read the materials on the website, and they're very open about the sources of their information and frequently link to them. It appears to be a well-supported set of claims.
 
Last edited:
Here is a podcast with additional information about Frakking. The guest speaker is a biology professor who lives within 20 miles of Arkansas' largest site, the Fayetteville Shale.
 
i heartily suggest anyone who is doubtful go find a fracking site and hang around.

I was appalled and they were only the sites that were near the road - and the national forest in Penn is criss crossed with the trails to the wells.

Bottom line the companies are racing the EPA control.

The natural gas boom gripping parts of the U.S. has a nasty byproduct: wastewater so salty, and so polluted with metals like barium and strontium, that most states require drillers to get rid of the stuff by injecting it down shafts thousands of feet deep.

Not in Pennsylvania, one of the states at the center of the gas rush.

There, the liquid that gushes from gas wells is only partially treated for substances that could be environmentally harmful, then dumped into rivers and streams from which communities get their drinking water.

In the two years since the frenzy of activity began in the vast underground rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania has been the only state allowing waterways to serve as the primary disposal place for the huge amounts of wastewater produced by a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

State regulators, initially caught flat-footed, tightened the rules this year for any new water treatment plants but allowed any existing operations to continue discharging water into rivers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/fracking-pollution-in-wat_n_803737.html

Anything that Haliburton has it's claws deep into is not likely to be environment friendly.
:garfield:
 
Strangely, I see no holes being poked by the article. I see a lot of speculation, and pretty much no citation, as is to be expected from an opinion piece. And for someone criticizing the lack of "context, balance and, above all, hard facts" that's pretty darned ironic.

Then there's the over the top title to the piece, which is obviously designed to evoke emotion over rationality... But you know, how dare we accuse the pot of calling the kettle black.

The facts on the subject are readily available. From unbiased third parties even. But hey, if you want to instead take the word of someone who's being published (if not paid directly) by the energy companies that are being criticized, with no evidence to back up their claims, you go right ahead.
 
The Railroad Commission issued a news release late Tuesday saying it was still checking but had not concluded that Range's wells were responsible.

"EPA's actions are premature as the Railroad Commission continues to actively investigate this issue and has not yet determined the cause of the gas," commission Chairman Victor G. Carrillo said. "This EPA action is unprecedented in Texas, and commissioners will consider all options as we move forward."

Of course that's just Industry shills. EPA bureaucrats always know more than people who actually do know what they're doing.

There are many reasons gas may be entering the acquifer; old wells, failed casing, etc.
 
AlBell said:
Of course that's just Industry shills. EPA bureaucrats always know more than people who actually do know what they're doing.

There are many reasons gas may be entering the acquifer; old wells, failed casing, etc.
I was once on a site contamined with diesel fuel (BTEX, technically, but let's call a spade a spade). After a few years of attempts at mitigation the monitors observed how they checked the level of fuel in the UST: a guy would come out with a big wooden stick with a piece of tape on it, stuck it in the tank, took it out, shook off the excess, and saw where the wet spot stopped. This had been going on for decades, apparently.

As for the EPA, I've worked with them before. They're your typical combination of hard workers, loafers, sharp people, and petty beaurocrats. I know that they've wasted a few million on one attempt to shut down a factory (the guy's on record saying that he's going to make his carreer getting this one factory shut down, no matter what; I witness him committing liable on a few occasions, and told him "Sir, I am not breaking into someone's back yard on your say-so", which tells you his mentality). They're not the saviors of humanity or even protectors of the environment; they're really no different from any other government agency.
 
It's unfortunate that squabbles like this detract from the awareness of the looming resource and energy problem.
 
I find it hard to believe that the EPA (or other state agencies) from a multitude of states would allow this if they didn't truly believe it was safe. It implies that seemingly everyone in a position of power is corrupt.


Or they are being kept ignorant.

Dave
 
Deny reality if you want to, I can't stop you, but a cursory bit of research shows real problems.

Yup, gas in acquifers sometimes is a problem. Linking it to the current scapegoat -- fracking operations -- is one of those correlation <?> causation problems.
 

Back
Top Bottom