Home » Posts tagged "GasLand"

GasLand

*UPDATE* Fox, ABC, and Truth in “Journalism”
During yesterday’s House Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on EPA’s draft Pavillion report, things got off to a circus-like start when New York filmmaker and Gasland producer Josh Fox deliberately violated committee rules to get himself arrested. But there's another story involving Mr. Fox and the Gasland crew that suggests his PR stunt may have involved something deeper and more disturbing...

UPDATE (see bottom of page)

During yesterday’s House Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on EPA’s draft Pavillion report, things got off to a circus-like start when New York filmmaker and Gasland producer Josh Fox deliberately violated committee rules to get himself arrested. The stunt worked, and news of the hearing largely focused on Fox’s arrest. The hearing itself actually should have made significant headlines, especially when the EPA backpedaled from its own accusation in the draft report about hydraulic fracturing causing water contamination.

But there’s another story involving Mr. Fox and the Gasland crew that suggests his PR stunt may have involved something deeper and more disturbing.

As the hearing officially began, ranking member Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) stated that ABC News had also been denied the opportunity to film the hearing, and the subcommittee should allow for greater access. Miller challenged the standing rule that no outside unaccredited filming was allowed, in part by stating:

“…it’s clear we have space in this room to film this hearing. If you claim that rule does not allow them to film, or allows you the discretion to turn them away, I move the rules be suspended so the fella who wanted to film for HBO be allowed to film this hearing and that ABC be allowed to film this hearing and all God’s children be allowed to film this hearing until the room is too full for us to conduct our business.”

The fact that even ABC had been turned away showed an unwillingness to allow public access at all, Miller suggested. The congressman’s motion to allow ABC (and Josh Fox) to return and film the hearing required a vote, which requires a quorum, so the hearing was suspended for 45 minutes until enough members could be rounded up to enter the room and vote (the motion was ultimately rejected).

Had ABC not been one of the outlets trying to film, it’s unlikely that such a spectacle would have occurred. Would a sitting member of Congress really hold up a major public hearing to accommodate the demands of a non-credentialed, camcorder-wielding activist? In that sense, ABC provided a convenient cover.

But after the hearing ended, an interesting revelation was made: As it turns out, ABC didn’t send a film crew to the hearing at all. As POLITICO reported, the videographer who had been turned away was actually hired by Gasland producer Trish Adlesic to film the hearing, not by ABC. It looked, at least for the moment, like the situation was nothing more than staffers receiving conflicting (and bad) information.

Or was it more deliberate?

Adlesic, the Gasland producer, and Matthew Sanchez – its editor – both attempted to film the hearing, and both were turned away. All of this demonstrates a broader and more coordinated effort on the part of Josh Fox’s crew — something beyoned what Fox later referred to as an act “done in an impromptu fashion.” The hearing, it should be noted, was broadcast live and in its entirety on C-SPAN and via live stream on the subcommittee’s webpage.

But how did ABC News play into this?

Last night, after seeing the countless news stories about Fox’s arrest, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee released a statement about Josh Fox and the reason Capitol Hill police removed him from the room. That statement also referenced ABC:

It has been misreported that the Committee turned away an accredited ABC News crew prior to the hearing.  While a film crew arrived at the hearing claiming to be with ABC News, the ABC News Washington bureau confirmed to the Committee it was unaware of sending any crew to tape the hearing.

It appears, then, that the videographer in question was not only hired by a Gasland producer, but had also falsely claimed to be representing ABC in order to gain access to the hearing.

Of course, by then, the stories had already been written. Not only had reporters already submitted stories referencing ABC News being kicked out, but activist groups were already creating petitions citing the “unlawful” act of denying “journalists” access to the hearing. As one such group, Water Defense, wrote in a plea sent out only hours after the hearing:

Josh [Fox] was charged with unlawful entry. An ABC News crew was also asked to leave. Since when is it unlawful for filmmakers and news organizations to document a hearing of major public importance?

With his efforts to uncover the truth about fracking and the natural gas industry, Josh Fox helped give our movement a huge boost and educated millions of Americans about this important issue. He and others should be allowed to film all Congressional hearings on fracking in order to better inform the public on this important issue.

All of this raises important questions. Did Josh Fox and his crew tell other activist groups that ABC had been denied entry? Did those organizations know the ABC angle was merely a foil? How many other times has Fox’s crew used false identities and pretenses to gain access to the places they seek?

And above all, if a group of people is willing to be dishonest about something like this, what won’t they be dishonest about?

Gasland 2 is scheduled to be released later this year.

—

UPDATE (Feb. 2, 4:28 p.m. ET): Josh Fox just appeared on MSNBC’s “News Nation” with Tamron Hall to talk about his arrest yesterday, and his contention that he’s so important now that Republicans in Congress have decided to essentially “blacklist” him from entering the Capitol complex. Fox delivered his usual screed against developing natural gas from shale, but Ms. Hall, the anchor, also recited some misleading talking points about Gasland that Fox himself may as well have written for her.

Here are a few of the biggest errors in the segment:

Tamron Hall (0:22): “But instead of letting him [Fox] in, Capitol Hill police hauled him off in cuffs.”

FACT: Josh Fox was not arrested for merely being in the room. He, like everyone else there, had every right to attend, observe, and report on the proceedings. He was let into the room, but was asked multiple times to take down his camera equipment, which he refused to do. This was not, as Hall suggested, about Fox being able to attend the hearing, but rather his deliberate decision to violate the rules relating to filming a hearing — a hearing that was being broadcast live on C-SPAN and via live-stream on the subcommittee’s webpage.

-

Hall (0:42): “Did you have the proper credentials?”

Josh Fox (0:44): “Yes.”

FACT: No, he did not. As the Committee’s rules clearly state: “Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Galleries.” Fox was not. He admitted just seconds after this, however, that “there is proper protocol” and that his crew “went through the proper channels,” but they did not receive credentials because they were attempting to gain them late in the evening before the hearing.

-

Hall (1:51): “Literally, the drinking water coming from the faucet in people’s homes lights up on fire due the [gas] drilling practice…”

FACT: This is actually one of the biggest falsehoods of the entire film (and Josh Fox knows it). Colorado regulators debunked the claim that the infamous “flaming faucet” was due to gas production. In fact, the state of Colorado determined conclusively that it “was not related to oil and gas activity,” but rather naturally-occurring methane. Fox, predictably, continues to claim the opposite, despite the facts.

-

Hall (2:02): “It is stunning, saddening, and sickening I believe to watch this [Gasland].”

FACT: We actually agree, but it’s because the movie is full of misinformation, not because the film is an accurate portrayal of what happens when you drill and complete a natural gas well, something industry has done in this country more than 1.2 million separate times.

-

Fox (2:13): “This was the Republicans holding a hearing with a panel full of gas lobbyists…” Seconds later (2:40) he again accuses the Republicans of “loading up the panel with gas lobbyists” to question the EPA’s findings in its draft report on Pavillion.

FACT: Here is who was actually on the panel: Jim Martin, EPA Region 8 administrator; Tom Doll, State Oil and Gas Supervisor for the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for the Western Energy Alliance; and Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus of the Graduate School of Public Health and the University of Pittsburgh. If that list doesn’t sound like a line-up “full of gas lobbyists” to you, it’s because it is not.

-

Fox (3:12): “[Y]ou have the journalists trying to report on this situation being hauled away in handcuffs.”

FACT: There was an entire section of the room filled with journalists using their computers, cell phones, and notepads to report on the hearing (I was there, and talked to a number of them). Many filed their stories while seated in the committee room. The hearing was also broadcast online and on C-SPAN, so many more were likely reporting on the hearing from the comfort of their own home or office desks.

-

Fox (3:43): “[T]he campaign for fracking has backfired because what it does is contaminate ground water.”

FACT: No, it does not. As EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has admitted, there is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing process contaminates ground water. State regulators from across the country have similarly affirmed its safety record, and even EPA’s Jim Martin (who testified at the hearing yesterday) has stated that, despite EPA’s careless statements in the draft report on Pavillion, “the causal link [of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively.”

Pavillion Hearing Raises More Questions for EPA
After a theatrical start to a hearing inside the stuffy walls of the Rayburn House Office Building, witnesses testified today about EPA’s recent draft report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo. The report, which attempts to link hydraulic fracturing technology to groundwater contamination, has been widely criticized...

After a theatrical start to a hearing inside the stuffy walls of the Rayburn House Office Building, witnesses testified today about EPA’s recent draft report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo. The report, which attempts to link hydraulic fracturing technology to groundwater contamination, has been widely criticized for the poor methodology upon which it is based, as well as obvious errors in sampling and testing procedures that EPA itself now concedes are real. And perhaps worst of all, the EPA hasn’t exactly been receiving requests for transparency with open arms.

The first to testify today was Jim Martin, administrator for EPA’s Region 8 office, who defended the agency’s report but also included an important caveat in his remarks:

We make clear that the causal link [of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively, and that our analysis is limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field and should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings.

Immediately following the release of EPA’s draft report, a series of questions began to emerge not just about the report’s finding on hydraulic fracturing, but even the process itself that EPA used to test ground water. Martin’s public admission that no causal link exists between water contamination and hydraulic fracturing followed in the wake of those questions, but was unfortunately made nearly two months after the EPA claimed such a link was “likely.” Martin claimed today, however, that the EPA merely “hypothesized potential pathways.”

Tom Doll from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission added to the mounting list of questions, accusing the EPA of using a “limited data set” to make “technically inadequate conclusions” in its report. “No data was provided by the EPA for the Pavillion Draft Report showing the producing depth, well construction or producing aquifer isolation,” Doll noted in his prepared remarks. During questioning by the Committee, Doll pointed out that the groundwater that the EPA tested for its report is different from the drinking water used by Pavillion residents, and the methane EPA analyzed was not the same as any potential biogenic methane that could be found in drinking water.

Doll also called into question the EPA’s focus for the report, which began as a means of helping local residents solve problems related to their water quality. “The EPA report does not address the need to solve the landowner’s water supply issues; rather the report only addresses hydraulic fracturing,” Doll added.

In December, Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) wrote to the EPA about the report, saying he was “troubled by the EPA’s dismissal of the practical concerns raised by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Encana related to the nature and the protocols employed in conducting the sampling procedures.” Doll noted at the hearing that the EPA did not reach out to WOGCC as it was preparing its report, a fact that Martin disputed on the basis that EPA had reached out to DEQ. WOGCC regulates oil and gas development in the state.

Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance criticized EPA’s draft report, noting that the industry is justifiably held to extremely high standards and regulators should be held to a similarly high standard in their research and conclusions. “The public trusts EPA to protect the environment, follow the law, and use sound science as the foundation of its regulatory work,” Sgamma said. But, in the case of Pavillion, “EPA’s own data and methods have raised serious questions” about their report and “led to concerns about unscientific methods, and lack of transparency and peer review.”

While the focus of the hearing was on the Pavillion report, the participants also engaged in a broader discussion of natural gas development. Professor Bernard Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh, whose testimony was “based upon personal discussion” with environmental activist groups, called for a slowdown in development until public health impacts could be determined.

But public data compiled late last year found that key health indicators actually improved across the board in Denton County, Texas – the heart of shale development in the United States. That followed the release of a separate study that found “no significant health risks” associated with developing natural gas from shale.

Goldstein also likened hydraulic fracturing to a “two-ton bomb” and, echoing remarks from Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), accused the industry of keeping fracturing fluids a secret (Miller’s opening statement included the term “secret sauce” when referencing the additives). Last year the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission established the website Frac Focus, which provides well-by-well information of the additives used during hydraulic fracturing. In the past year, both Texas and Colorado have passed laws that incorporate Frac Focus into their statutory requirements on disclosure (and, of course, EID has also maintained a publicly available list of those chemicals for years).

As today’s testimonies show, EPA’s report on Pavillion continues to spur more questions than answers; not about hydraulic fracturing, but rather about EPA’s own conclusions and methodology. EPA essentially confirmed (by way of omission) that it had not consulted WOGCC for its report, which suggests the EPA either didn’t think to seek adequate guidance, or deliberately ignored a state regulatory body in a report that focused on a process regulated by that body.

And, by making politically charged accusation that hydraulic fracturing “likely” caused water contamination, the EPA has undermined its own credibility with its broader national study on hydraulic fracturing. Will that study suffer from the same systemic and methodological flaws as the Pavillion report? Will the EPA seek proper guidance and provide transparent testing results? Will it contain statements about hydraulic fracturing that are more befitting of a political debate than scientific inquiry? Will the EPA once again have to backpedal from its initial “findings,” as it was forced to do in the hearings today? The fact that those questions even have to be asked, and indeed are being asked, is troubling in and of itself.

Regarding the Pavillion report and the EPA’s credibility on hydraulic fracturing, Doll from the WOGCC perhaps summed it up best. “Based on a limited sampling and an inconclusive data set from Pavillion Wyoming ground water, EPA’s conclusion is now national and international fodder for the hydraulic fracturing debate,” Doll said. “Now the quality of the hydraulic fracturing debate suffers and the EPA’s science itself is questioned.”

ICYMI: Popular Mechanics Busts Several ‘Myths’ about Natural Gas, HF

Seamus McGraw at Popular Mechanics recently took some time to set the record straight on natural gas production and hydraulic fracturing, a welcome change of pace from the baseless doom-and-gloom narrative that comes from opponents of American energy. While a few facts still fly under the radar, McGraw’s overall take represents another quality fact check on natural gas development.

Here are the claims as laid about by PM, followed by the magazine’s response and EID’s additional comments.

CLAIM 1: “We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.”  –Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., May 2010

CLAIM 2: “Hydraulic fracturing squanders our precious water resources.” –Green Party of Pennsylvania, April 2011

CLAIM 3: “Natural gas is cleaner, cheaper, domestic, and it’s viable now.”  –T. Boone Pickens, September 2009

CLAIM 4: “There’s never been one case—documented case—of groundwater contamination in the history of the thousands and thousands of hydraulic fracturing [wells].”  –Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., April 2011

CLAIM 5: “The Gas era is coming, and the landscape north and west of (New York City) will inevitably be transformed as a result.  When the valves start opening next year, a lot of poor farm folk may become Texas rich.  And a lot of other people—especially the ecosensistive New York City crowd that has settled among them—will be apoplectic as their pristine weekend sanctuary is converted into an industrial zone, criss crossed with drill pads, pipelines, and access roads.” –New York magazine, Sept. 21, 2008

CLAIM 6: “Natural gas is affordable, abundant and American.  It costs one-third less to fill up with natural gas than traditional gasoline.” –Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., March 2011

CLAIM 7: “Do not drink this water.” –Handwritten sign in the film GasLand, 2010

CLAIM 8: ”As New York gears up for a  massive expansion of gas drilling in the Marcellus shale, state officials have made a potentially troubling discovery about the wastewater created by the process: It’s radioactive.” –ProPublica, 2009

CLAIM 9: “Claiming that the information is proprietary, drilling companies have still not come out and full disclosed what fracking fluid is made of.” –Vanity Fair, June 2010

CLAIM 10: “The increasing abundance of cheap natural gas, coupled with rising demand for the fuel from China and the fall-out from the fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, may have set the stage for a Golden Age of gas.” –Wall Street Journal, Summarizing an International Energy Agency Report, June 6, 2011.

Zero Points For Originality

American Water Works Assoc. Paper Parrots Debunked Gasland Claims About Hydrofracturing

Founded in 1881, the Denver, CO-based American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) stated purpose, according to its site, is being for “the exchange of information pertaining to the management of water-works, for the mutual advancement of consumers and water companies, and for the purpose of securing economy and uniformity in the operations of water-works.”

Keep Reading »

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan to Gasland’s Josh Fox: “I’m not looking to get a propaganda speech from you”

Earlier today, Gasland producer Josh Fox appeared on MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan show, where he rattled off his same tired, debunked talking points like a broken record. However, Fox – who’s become somewhat of an MSNBC regular – was forcefully challenged on the facts by Ratigan, and pressed to outline his energy ‘plan’ to fuel America’s economy on exclusively wind and solar. (NOTE: According to the independent U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind and solar provided 0.54 and 0.09 of America’s energy needs, respectively, in 2008.)

As you’ll see, while Fox waxes poetically about the ridiculous and fictional notion that wind and solar can exclusively drive America’s economy, Environmental Defense Fund’s Elena Craft – an air quality specialist – tells Ratigan this: “At EDF, I think we’re realists. We realize that natural gas is part of a diverse energy portfolio.”

This from the interview (er, Fox’s ‘propaganda speech’):

Dylan Ratigan: “Do you have a plan to run American energy on sun and wind?”

Fox: “Yes, of course.” (Yet Fox doesn’t offer such a ‘plan’; perhaps because such ‘plan’ doesn’t exist.)

Ratigan: “I get it. You believe natural gas will ruin the universe and cannot be solved. If you have an alternative, I’d love to hear it. … If you want to make a speech, put it on YouTube. I want to have a conversation to solve the problem with you. I’m not looking to get a propaganda speech from you.”

As they say: the more things change, the more things stay the same.

Market Rate for Bald-Faced Lies About Hydraulic Fracturing? $7,500.

Earlier this week, after hobnobbing with Hollywood’s elite, New York City filmmaker Josh Fox made the trek to Conway, Arkansas to spread misinformation about the responsible development of clean-burning, job-creating American natural gas development.


(facebook.com/gaslandmovie; accessed 2/3/11)

At a Hendrix College panel on Tuesday, sponsored by the school’s Environmental Concerns Committee, the Gasland director, true to form, lodged a host of unfounded claims about hydraulic fracturing. “Some critics doubt some of Fox’s finding, but he stands by his research,” reports KATV.

And speaking of critics, John Hanger, who served as the top environmental watchdog under former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and previously as president of the state’s leading environmental organization, PennFuture, has been less than shy about this sentiments toward Josh Fox and his hatched job of a documentary. In the lead up to the Oscars, the former Department of Environmental Protection secretary writes this on his blog about Gasland’s bogus and debunked claims regarding shale gas development:

The film presents a selective, distorted view of gas drilling and the energy choices America faces today. If Gasland were about the airline industry, every flight would crash and all airlines would be irresponsible. … Gasland treats cavalierly facts both by omitting important ones and getting wrong others.

While Gasland “is dedicated to the non-profit organization Damascus Citizens for Sustainability,” according to the film’s Wikipedia page, director Josh Fox is demanding top-dollar for appearances.

In minutes from a November Hendrix College Student Senate meeting, it’s noted that Fox’s “original standard fee is $7,500, but the lowest he will go is $5,000.” In addition to the requested fee, Fox requested airfare from, yes, New York City. Clearly the most logical region for any Pennsylvanian to travel through. This from the minutes:

Requesting: $5,304.20

For: Speaker Josh Fox, director and creator of GasLand

When and where this event will occur: Worsham, next semester

Master Calendar Confirmation: Dependent on Josh Fox’s schedule

Details: We want to show the movie GasLand about natural gas drilling. This is a pertinent issue to the students at Hendrix and the community of Conway. … The ECC will pay for the film rights and Josh’s food and lodging.

Budget Breakdown:

$304.20 – Roundtrip flight from New York City to Little Rock, AR

$5,000 – Josh Fox’s fee

His original standard fee is $7,500, but the lowest he will go is $5,000.

But hey, it’s not as if “America’s Enemies Don’t Want U.S. Drilling,” right?

 

ICYMI: Gasland director lies on national TV

 

Segment link: http://tinyurl.com/5wrku6x

Host: “Energy In Depth … actually has a webpage out called ‘Debunking Gasland.’ And they call out that clip that we showed [the Markham well clip]. They say that [the] methane is biogenic or naturally occurring, and that there are no indications of oil and gas related impacts to water wells. What’s your reaction?” Josh Fox: “This is insane. … The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission confirmed that [the Markham faucet] was oil and gas related.” (6:28)

But that’s a lie. Here’s what Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) inspector John Axelson actually found, according to the report he filed in Sept. 2008: “Collected water sample from [Markham’s] domestic water well. … Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic in origin. … There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.”

More from COGCC:

Fox: “It’s fluids injected down a wellbore that breaks apart rock formations where gas is trapped and has opened up other formations to drilling throughout New York and Pennsylvania that weren’t able to be drilled before. And somehow these chemicals, which are very dangerous, neurotoxins and carcinogens and the gas itself migrate into the aquifers…” (4:33)

But that’s a lie – according to environmental regulators in Pennsylvania:

Host: “First of all, how did you even come to find out about this, and how did you slowly start to become an investigative reporter?” Fox: “This all sort of happened to me by accident, I live in the upper Delaware river basin in Pennsylvania… I was approached to lease my land for natural gas drilling in 2008. … Some of my neighbors [in Pennsylvania] were saying there were real environmental hazards.” (1:34)

But that’s a lie – according to Josh Fox himself:

READ MORE

o    “In an interview with The Inquirer on Wednesday, [DEP secretary John] Hanger was harshly critical of Fox, whom he called a ‘propagandist.’”

o    “Hanger dismissed Gasland…as ‘fundamentally dishonest’ and ‘a deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect.’”

 

 

o    “By failing to evaluate the claims of his interviewees more carefully, he has left himself open to the kind of takedown carried out by Energy In Depth.”

o    “There are key problems with the film’s claims.”

o    “Fox’s defence for any lack of rigour was that he wanted to start a debate, rather than have the last word. But that doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility to thoroughly check his claims. … This is absurd.”

 

 

 

Wash. Examiner Columnist: “Gasland is more agit-prop than factual documentary

EID Statement on Josh Fox, Mark Ruffalo Capitol Hill Press Conference

WASHINGTON – At a Capitol Hill press conference today, a small group of critics opposed to the responsible development of job-creating American oil and natural gas – including U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), actor Mark Ruffalo, and GasLand filmmaker Josh Fox – are poised to renew calls for a one-size-fits-all, federal takeover of hydraulic fracturing, a 60 year-old energy stimulation technology used to enhance 90 percent of the nation’s onshore wells.

Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy In Depth, issued this statement regarding the event:

“It’s clear that this event, scripted by a Hollywood publicist one week before the Academy Awards, is focused on achieving staged drama and inside-the-beltway chatter about a ‘documentary’ that’s been debunked in its entirety.

“Refusing to engage in a fact and science-based dialogue, New York City stage director Josh Fox, his Hollywood friends, and a few congressmen are more concerned with stunts and scare tactics than working to address critical energy security issues. The American people deserve and expect nothing less than a serious discussion and common sense solutions regarding national energy policy, not tired, misleading talking points from Hollywood elite who’ve never been on a drilling rig.

“American natural gas and oil production must absolutely be done safely and in way that protects our environment and water. And for more than 60 years, state governments have ably and effectively regulated hydraulic fracturing. Energy-producing states, who understand their unique geology best, have inspectors and expert scientists in place to ensure that fracturing is done safely not impact groundwater.

“EPA is once again studying hydraulic fracturing, and we support a straightforward, scientific examination of this environmentally proven technology. Input from state regulators, natural gas and oil producers, scientists and other independent stakeholders will be critical to this undertaking’s objectivity, and ultimately its success.

“Any congressional efforts to give EPA outright authority to regulate fracturing – which could hamper American energy production and job growth – would be absolutely premature until this study is completed and thoroughly peer-reviewed.”

NRDC’s About Face

Nat’l Environmental Group “Gushes” Over Economic, Environmental Benefits of Shale Gas, Then “Lauds” Gasland Filmmaker’s Efforts to Halt its Responsible Production Two Days Later

Keep Reading »

« Older Entries

Posts Tagged ‘GasLand’

« Older Entries

*UPDATE* Fox, ABC, and Truth in “Journalism”

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

UPDATE (see bottom of page)

During yesterday’s House Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on EPA’s draft Pavillion report, things got off to a circus-like start when New York filmmaker and Gasland producer Josh Fox deliberately violated committee rules to get himself arrested. The stunt worked, and news of the hearing largely focused on Fox’s arrest. The hearing itself actually should have made significant headlines, especially when the EPA backpedaled from its own accusation in the draft report about hydraulic fracturing causing water contamination.

But there’s another story involving Mr. Fox and the Gasland crew that suggests his PR stunt may have involved something deeper and more disturbing.

As the hearing officially began, ranking member Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) stated that ABC News had also been denied the opportunity to film the hearing, and the subcommittee should allow for greater access. Miller challenged the standing rule that no outside unaccredited filming was allowed, in part by stating:

“…it’s clear we have space in this room to film this hearing. If you claim that rule does not allow them to film, or allows you the discretion to turn them away, I move the rules be suspended so the fella who wanted to film for HBO be allowed to film this hearing and that ABC be allowed to film this hearing and all God’s children be allowed to film this hearing until the room is too full for us to conduct our business.”

The fact that even ABC had been turned away showed an unwillingness to allow public access at all, Miller suggested. The congressman’s motion to allow ABC (and Josh Fox) to return and film the hearing required a vote, which requires a quorum, so the hearing was suspended for 45 minutes until enough members could be rounded up to enter the room and vote (the motion was ultimately rejected).

Had ABC not been one of the outlets trying to film, it’s unlikely that such a spectacle would have occurred. Would a sitting member of Congress really hold up a major public hearing to accommodate the demands of a non-credentialed, camcorder-wielding activist? In that sense, ABC provided a convenient cover.

But after the hearing ended, an interesting revelation was made: As it turns out, ABC didn’t send a film crew to the hearing at all. As POLITICO reported, the videographer who had been turned away was actually hired by Gasland producer Trish Adlesic to film the hearing, not by ABC. It looked, at least for the moment, like the situation was nothing more than staffers receiving conflicting (and bad) information.

Or was it more deliberate?

Adlesic, the Gasland producer, and Matthew Sanchez – its editor – both attempted to film the hearing, and both were turned away. All of this demonstrates a broader and more coordinated effort on the part of Josh Fox’s crew — something beyoned what Fox later referred to as an act “done in an impromptu fashion.” The hearing, it should be noted, was broadcast live and in its entirety on C-SPAN and via live stream on the subcommittee’s webpage.

But how did ABC News play into this?

Last night, after seeing the countless news stories about Fox’s arrest, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee released a statement about Josh Fox and the reason Capitol Hill police removed him from the room. That statement also referenced ABC:

It has been misreported that the Committee turned away an accredited ABC News crew prior to the hearing.  While a film crew arrived at the hearing claiming to be with ABC News, the ABC News Washington bureau confirmed to the Committee it was unaware of sending any crew to tape the hearing.

It appears, then, that the videographer in question was not only hired by a Gasland producer, but had also falsely claimed to be representing ABC in order to gain access to the hearing.

Of course, by then, the stories had already been written. Not only had reporters already submitted stories referencing ABC News being kicked out, but activist groups were already creating petitions citing the “unlawful” act of denying “journalists” access to the hearing. As one such group, Water Defense, wrote in a plea sent out only hours after the hearing:

Josh [Fox] was charged with unlawful entry. An ABC News crew was also asked to leave. Since when is it unlawful for filmmakers and news organizations to document a hearing of major public importance?

With his efforts to uncover the truth about fracking and the natural gas industry, Josh Fox helped give our movement a huge boost and educated millions of Americans about this important issue. He and others should be allowed to film all Congressional hearings on fracking in order to better inform the public on this important issue.

All of this raises important questions. Did Josh Fox and his crew tell other activist groups that ABC had been denied entry? Did those organizations know the ABC angle was merely a foil? How many other times has Fox’s crew used false identities and pretenses to gain access to the places they seek?

And above all, if a group of people is willing to be dishonest about something like this, what won’t they be dishonest about?

Gasland 2 is scheduled to be released later this year.

—

UPDATE (Feb. 2, 4:28 p.m. ET): Josh Fox just appeared on MSNBC’s “News Nation” with Tamron Hall to talk about his arrest yesterday, and his contention that he’s so important now that Republicans in Congress have decided to essentially “blacklist” him from entering the Capitol complex. Fox delivered his usual screed against developing natural gas from shale, but Ms. Hall, the anchor, also recited some misleading talking points about Gasland that Fox himself may as well have written for her.

Here are a few of the biggest errors in the segment:

Tamron Hall (0:22): “But instead of letting him [Fox] in, Capitol Hill police hauled him off in cuffs.”

FACT: Josh Fox was not arrested for merely being in the room. He, like everyone else there, had every right to attend, observe, and report on the proceedings. He was let into the room, but was asked multiple times to take down his camera equipment, which he refused to do. This was not, as Hall suggested, about Fox being able to attend the hearing, but rather his deliberate decision to violate the rules relating to filming a hearing — a hearing that was being broadcast live on C-SPAN and via live-stream on the subcommittee’s webpage.

-

Hall (0:42): “Did you have the proper credentials?”

Josh Fox (0:44): “Yes.”

FACT: No, he did not. As the Committee’s rules clearly state: “Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Galleries.” Fox was not. He admitted just seconds after this, however, that “there is proper protocol” and that his crew “went through the proper channels,” but they did not receive credentials because they were attempting to gain them late in the evening before the hearing.

-

Hall (1:51): “Literally, the drinking water coming from the faucet in people’s homes lights up on fire due the [gas] drilling practice…”

FACT: This is actually one of the biggest falsehoods of the entire film (and Josh Fox knows it). Colorado regulators debunked the claim that the infamous “flaming faucet” was due to gas production. In fact, the state of Colorado determined conclusively that it “was not related to oil and gas activity,” but rather naturally-occurring methane. Fox, predictably, continues to claim the opposite, despite the facts.

-

Hall (2:02): “It is stunning, saddening, and sickening I believe to watch this [Gasland].”

FACT: We actually agree, but it’s because the movie is full of misinformation, not because the film is an accurate portrayal of what happens when you drill and complete a natural gas well, something industry has done in this country more than 1.2 million separate times.

-

Fox (2:13): “This was the Republicans holding a hearing with a panel full of gas lobbyists…” Seconds later (2:40) he again accuses the Republicans of “loading up the panel with gas lobbyists” to question the EPA’s findings in its draft report on Pavillion.

FACT: Here is who was actually on the panel: Jim Martin, EPA Region 8 administrator; Tom Doll, State Oil and Gas Supervisor for the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for the Western Energy Alliance; and Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus of the Graduate School of Public Health and the University of Pittsburgh. If that list doesn’t sound like a line-up “full of gas lobbyists” to you, it’s because it is not.

-

Fox (3:12): “[Y]ou have the journalists trying to report on this situation being hauled away in handcuffs.”

FACT: There was an entire section of the room filled with journalists using their computers, cell phones, and notepads to report on the hearing (I was there, and talked to a number of them). Many filed their stories while seated in the committee room. The hearing was also broadcast online and on C-SPAN, so many more were likely reporting on the hearing from the comfort of their own home or office desks.

-

Fox (3:43): “[T]he campaign for fracking has backfired because what it does is contaminate ground water.”

FACT: No, it does not. As EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has admitted, there is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing process contaminates ground water. State regulators from across the country have similarly affirmed its safety record, and even EPA’s Jim Martin (who testified at the hearing yesterday) has stated that, despite EPA’s careless statements in the draft report on Pavillion, “the causal link [of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Archive | 2 Comments »

Pavillion Hearing Raises More Questions for EPA

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

After a theatrical start to a hearing inside the stuffy walls of the Rayburn House Office Building, witnesses testified today about EPA’s recent draft report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo. The report, which attempts to link hydraulic fracturing technology to groundwater contamination, has been widely criticized for the poor methodology upon which it is based, as well as obvious errors in sampling and testing procedures that EPA itself now concedes are real. And perhaps worst of all, the EPA hasn’t exactly been receiving requests for transparency with open arms.

The first to testify today was Jim Martin, administrator for EPA’s Region 8 office, who defended the agency’s report but also included an important caveat in his remarks:

We make clear that the causal link [of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively, and that our analysis is limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field and should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings.

Immediately following the release of EPA’s draft report, a series of questions began to emerge not just about the report’s finding on hydraulic fracturing, but even the process itself that EPA used to test ground water. Martin’s public admission that no causal link exists between water contamination and hydraulic fracturing followed in the wake of those questions, but was unfortunately made nearly two months after the EPA claimed such a link was “likely.” Martin claimed today, however, that the EPA merely “hypothesized potential pathways.”

Tom Doll from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission added to the mounting list of questions, accusing the EPA of using a “limited data set” to make “technically inadequate conclusions” in its report. “No data was provided by the EPA for the Pavillion Draft Report showing the producing depth, well construction or producing aquifer isolation,” Doll noted in his prepared remarks. During questioning by the Committee, Doll pointed out that the groundwater that the EPA tested for its report is different from the drinking water used by Pavillion residents, and the methane EPA analyzed was not the same as any potential biogenic methane that could be found in drinking water.

Doll also called into question the EPA’s focus for the report, which began as a means of helping local residents solve problems related to their water quality. “The EPA report does not address the need to solve the landowner’s water supply issues; rather the report only addresses hydraulic fracturing,” Doll added.

In December, Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) wrote to the EPA about the report, saying he was “troubled by the EPA’s dismissal of the practical concerns raised by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Encana related to the nature and the protocols employed in conducting the sampling procedures.” Doll noted at the hearing that the EPA did not reach out to WOGCC as it was preparing its report, a fact that Martin disputed on the basis that EPA had reached out to DEQ. WOGCC regulates oil and gas development in the state.

Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance criticized EPA’s draft report, noting that the industry is justifiably held to extremely high standards and regulators should be held to a similarly high standard in their research and conclusions. “The public trusts EPA to protect the environment, follow the law, and use sound science as the foundation of its regulatory work,” Sgamma said. But, in the case of Pavillion, “EPA’s own data and methods have raised serious questions” about their report and “led to concerns about unscientific methods, and lack of transparency and peer review.”

While the focus of the hearing was on the Pavillion report, the participants also engaged in a broader discussion of natural gas development. Professor Bernard Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh, whose testimony was “based upon personal discussion” with environmental activist groups, called for a slowdown in development until public health impacts could be determined.

But public data compiled late last year found that key health indicators actually improved across the board in Denton County, Texas – the heart of shale development in the United States. That followed the release of a separate study that found “no significant health risks” associated with developing natural gas from shale.

Goldstein also likened hydraulic fracturing to a “two-ton bomb” and, echoing remarks from Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), accused the industry of keeping fracturing fluids a secret (Miller’s opening statement included the term “secret sauce” when referencing the additives). Last year the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission established the website Frac Focus, which provides well-by-well information of the additives used during hydraulic fracturing. In the past year, both Texas and Colorado have passed laws that incorporate Frac Focus into their statutory requirements on disclosure (and, of course, EID has also maintained a publicly available list of those chemicals for years).

As today’s testimonies show, EPA’s report on Pavillion continues to spur more questions than answers; not about hydraulic fracturing, but rather about EPA’s own conclusions and methodology. EPA essentially confirmed (by way of omission) that it had not consulted WOGCC for its report, which suggests the EPA either didn’t think to seek adequate guidance, or deliberately ignored a state regulatory body in a report that focused on a process regulated by that body.

And, by making politically charged accusation that hydraulic fracturing “likely” caused water contamination, the EPA has undermined its own credibility with its broader national study on hydraulic fracturing. Will that study suffer from the same systemic and methodological flaws as the Pavillion report? Will the EPA seek proper guidance and provide transparent testing results? Will it contain statements about hydraulic fracturing that are more befitting of a political debate than scientific inquiry? Will the EPA once again have to backpedal from its initial “findings,” as it was forced to do in the hearings today? The fact that those questions even have to be asked, and indeed are being asked, is troubling in and of itself.

Regarding the Pavillion report and the EPA’s credibility on hydraulic fracturing, Doll from the WOGCC perhaps summed it up best. “Based on a limited sampling and an inconclusive data set from Pavillion Wyoming ground water, EPA’s conclusion is now national and international fodder for the hydraulic fracturing debate,” Doll said. “Now the quality of the hydraulic fracturing debate suffers and the EPA’s science itself is questioned.”

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Archive | 2 Comments »

ICYMI: Popular Mechanics Busts Several ‘Myths’ about Natural Gas, HF

Wednesday, September 7th, 2011

Seamus McGraw at Popular Mechanics recently took some time to set the record straight on natural gas production and hydraulic fracturing, a welcome change of pace from the baseless doom-and-gloom narrative that comes from opponents of American energy. While a few facts still fly under the radar, McGraw’s overall take represents another quality fact check on natural gas development.

Here are the claims as laid about by PM, followed by the magazine’s response and EID’s additional comments.

CLAIM 1: “We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.”  –Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., May 2010

CLAIM 2: “Hydraulic fracturing squanders our precious water resources.” –Green Party of Pennsylvania, April 2011

CLAIM 3: “Natural gas is cleaner, cheaper, domestic, and it’s viable now.”  –T. Boone Pickens, September 2009

CLAIM 4: “There’s never been one case—documented case—of groundwater contamination in the history of the thousands and thousands of hydraulic fracturing [wells].”  –Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., April 2011

CLAIM 5: “The Gas era is coming, and the landscape north and west of (New York City) will inevitably be transformed as a result.  When the valves start opening next year, a lot of poor farm folk may become Texas rich.  And a lot of other people—especially the ecosensistive New York City crowd that has settled among them—will be apoplectic as their pristine weekend sanctuary is converted into an industrial zone, criss crossed with drill pads, pipelines, and access roads.” –New York magazine, Sept. 21, 2008

CLAIM 6: “Natural gas is affordable, abundant and American.  It costs one-third less to fill up with natural gas than traditional gasoline.” –Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., March 2011

CLAIM 7: “Do not drink this water.” –Handwritten sign in the film GasLand, 2010

CLAIM 8: ”As New York gears up for a  massive expansion of gas drilling in the Marcellus shale, state officials have made a potentially troubling discovery about the wastewater created by the process: It’s radioactive.” –ProPublica, 2009

CLAIM 9: “Claiming that the information is proprietary, drilling companies have still not come out and full disclosed what fracking fluid is made of.” –Vanity Fair, June 2010

CLAIM 10: “The increasing abundance of cheap natural gas, coupled with rising demand for the fuel from China and the fall-out from the fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, may have set the stage for a Golden Age of gas.” –Wall Street Journal, Summarizing an International Energy Agency Report, June 6, 2011.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Archive | No Comments »

Zero Points For Originality

Friday, July 15th, 2011

American Water Works Assoc. Paper Parrots Debunked Gasland Claims About Hydrofracturing

Founded in 1881, the Denver, CO-based American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) stated purpose, according to its site, is being for “the exchange of information pertaining to the management of water-works, for the mutual advancement of consumers and water companies, and for the purpose of securing economy and uniformity in the operations of water-works.” (more…)

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Archive | No Comments »

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan to Gasland’s Josh Fox: “I’m not looking to get a propaganda speech from you”

Friday, April 1st, 2011

Earlier today, Gasland producer Josh Fox appeared on MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan show, where he rattled off his same tired, debunked talking points like a broken record. However, Fox – who’s become somewhat of an MSNBC regular – was forcefully challenged on the facts by Ratigan, and pressed to outline his energy ‘plan’ to fuel America’s economy on exclusively wind and solar. (NOTE: According to the independent U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind and solar provided 0.54 and 0.09 of America’s energy needs, respectively, in 2008.)

As you’ll see, while Fox waxes poetically about the ridiculous and fictional notion that wind and solar can exclusively drive America’s economy, Environmental Defense Fund’s Elena Craft – an air quality specialist – tells Ratigan this: “At EDF, I think we’re realists. We realize that natural gas is part of a diverse energy portfolio.”

This from the interview (er, Fox’s ‘propaganda speech’):

Dylan Ratigan: “Do you have a plan to run American energy on sun and wind?”

Fox: “Yes, of course.” (Yet Fox doesn’t offer such a ‘plan’; perhaps because such ‘plan’ doesn’t exist.)

Ratigan: “I get it. You believe natural gas will ruin the universe and cannot be solved. If you have an alternative, I’d love to hear it. … If you want to make a speech, put it on YouTube. I want to have a conversation to solve the problem with you. I’m not looking to get a propaganda speech from you.”

As they say: the more things change, the more things stay the same.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Archive | No Comments »

Market Rate for Bald-Faced Lies About Hydraulic Fracturing? $7,500.

Friday, March 4th, 2011

Earlier this week, after hobnobbing with Hollywood’s elite, New York City filmmaker Josh Fox made the trek to Conway, Arkansas to spread misinformation about the responsible development of clean-burning, job-creating American natural gas development.


(facebook.com/gaslandmovie; accessed 2/3/11)

At a Hendrix College panel on Tuesday, sponsored by the school’s Environmental Concerns Committee, the Gasland director, true to form, lodged a host of unfounded claims about hydraulic fracturing. “Some critics doubt some of Fox’s finding, but he stands by his research,” reports KATV.

And speaking of critics, John Hanger, who served as the top environmental watchdog under former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and previously as president of the state’s leading environmental organization, PennFuture, has been less than shy about this sentiments toward Josh Fox and his hatched job of a documentary. In the lead up to the Oscars, the former Department of Environmental Protection secretary writes this on his blog about Gasland’s bogus and debunked claims regarding shale gas development:

The film presents a selective, distorted view of gas drilling and the energy choices America faces today. If Gasland were about the airline industry, every flight would crash and all airlines would be irresponsible. … Gasland treats cavalierly facts both by omitting important ones and getting wrong others.

While Gasland “is dedicated to the non-profit organization Damascus Citizens for Sustainability,” according to the film’s Wikipedia page, director Josh Fox is demanding top-dollar for appearances.

In minutes from a November Hendrix College Student Senate meeting, it’s noted that Fox’s “original standard fee is $7,500, but the lowest he will go is $5,000.” In addition to the requested fee, Fox requested airfare from, yes, New York City. Clearly the most logical region for any Pennsylvanian to travel through. This from the minutes:

Requesting: $5,304.20

For: Speaker Josh Fox, director and creator of GasLand

When and where this event will occur: Worsham, next semester

Master Calendar Confirmation: Dependent on Josh Fox’s schedule

Details: We want to show the movie GasLand about natural gas drilling. This is a pertinent issue to the students at Hendrix and the community of Conway. … The ECC will pay for the film rights and Josh’s food and lodging.

Budget Breakdown:

$304.20 – Roundtrip flight from New York City to Little Rock, AR

$5,000 – Josh Fox’s fee

His original standard fee is $7,500, but the lowest he will go is $5,000.

But hey, it’s not as if “America’s Enemies Don’t Want U.S. Drilling,” right?

 

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Archive | No Comments »

ICYMI: Gasland director lies on national TV

Monday, February 21st, 2011

 

Segment link: http://tinyurl.com/5wrku6x

Host: “Energy In Depth … actually has a webpage out called ‘Debunking Gasland.’ And they call out that clip that we showed [the Markham well clip]. They say that [the] methane is biogenic or naturally occurring, and that there are no indications of oil and gas related impacts to water wells. What’s your reaction?” Josh Fox: “This is insane. … The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission confirmed that [the Markham faucet] was oil and gas related.” (6:28)

But that’s a lie. Here’s what Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) inspector John Axelson actually found, according to the report he filed in Sept. 2008: “Collected water sample from [Markham’s] domestic water well. … Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic in origin. … There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.”

More from COGCC:

Fox: “It’s fluids injected down a wellbore that breaks apart rock formations where gas is trapped and has opened up other formations to drilling throughout New York and Pennsylvania that weren’t able to be drilled before. And somehow these chemicals, which are very dangerous, neurotoxins and carcinogens and the gas itself migrate into the aquifers…” (4:33)

But that’s a lie – according to environmental regulators in Pennsylvania:

Host: “First of all, how did you even come to find out about this, and how did you slowly start to become an investigative reporter?” Fox: “This all sort of happened to me by accident, I live in the upper Delaware river basin in Pennsylvania… I was approached to lease my land for natural gas drilling in 2008. … Some of my neighbors [in Pennsylvania] were saying there were real environmental hazards.” (1:34)

But that’s a lie – according to Josh Fox himself:

READ MORE

o    “In an interview with The Inquirer on Wednesday, [DEP secretary John] Hanger was harshly critical of Fox, whom he called a ‘propagandist.’”

o    “Hanger dismissed Gasland…as ‘fundamentally dishonest’ and ‘a deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect.’”

 

 

o    “By failing to evaluate the claims of his interviewees more carefully, he has left himself open to the kind of takedown carried out by Energy In Depth.”

o    “There are key problems with the film’s claims.”

o    “Fox’s defence for any lack of rigour was that he wanted to start a debate, rather than have the last word. But that doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility to thoroughly check his claims. … This is absurd.”

 

 

 

Wash. Examiner Columnist: “Gasland is more agit-prop than factual documentary

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Archive | 1 Comment »

EID Statement on Josh Fox, Mark Ruffalo Capitol Hill Press Conference

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

WASHINGTON – At a Capitol Hill press conference today, a small group of critics opposed to the responsible development of job-creating American oil and natural gas – including U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), actor Mark Ruffalo, and GasLand filmmaker Josh Fox – are poised to renew calls for a one-size-fits-all, federal takeover of hydraulic fracturing, a 60 year-old energy stimulation technology used to enhance 90 percent of the nation’s onshore wells.

Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy In Depth, issued this statement regarding the event:

“It’s clear that this event, scripted by a Hollywood publicist one week before the Academy Awards, is focused on achieving staged drama and inside-the-beltway chatter about a ‘documentary’ that’s been debunked in its entirety.

“Refusing to engage in a fact and science-based dialogue, New York City stage director Josh Fox, his Hollywood friends, and a few congressmen are more concerned with stunts and scare tactics than working to address critical energy security issues. The American people deserve and expect nothing less than a serious discussion and common sense solutions regarding national energy policy, not tired, misleading talking points from Hollywood elite who’ve never been on a drilling rig.

“American natural gas and oil production must absolutely be done safely and in way that protects our environment and water. And for more than 60 years, state governments have ably and effectively regulated hydraulic fracturing. Energy-producing states, who understand their unique geology best, have inspectors and expert scientists in place to ensure that fracturing is done safely not impact groundwater.

“EPA is once again studying hydraulic fracturing, and we support a straightforward, scientific examination of this environmentally proven technology. Input from state regulators, natural gas and oil producers, scientists and other independent stakeholders will be critical to this undertaking’s objectivity, and ultimately its success.

“Any congressional efforts to give EPA outright authority to regulate fracturing – which could hamper American energy production and job growth – would be absolutely premature until this study is completed and thoroughly peer-reviewed.”

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Archive | No Comments »

NRDC’s About Face

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

Nat’l Environmental Group “Gushes” Over Economic, Environmental Benefits of Shale Gas, Then “Lauds” Gasland Filmmaker’s Efforts to Halt its Responsible Production Two Days Later (more…)

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Archive | No Comments »

« Older Entries