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.”

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.”

The study also found that the source for methane in the area isn’t the Marcellus Shale, as some folks continue to suggest- it’s the thermogenic gas-charged sandstone in the Catskill Formation- the primary source for water wells in the region.  Indeed, the researchers found that the isotopic signature of thermogenic gas in the area, including  samples utilized in Duke University’s earlier study, suggest that the signature of methane is consistent with methane found in the Catskill and Upper and Middle Devonian deposits. From the piece:

The present study, however, shows that the isotopic signatures of the Duke Study’s thermogenic methane samples were more consistent with those of shallower Upper and Middle Devonian deposits overlying the Marcellus Shale.  This finding indicates that the methane samples analyzed in the Duke study could have originated entirely from shallower sources above the Marcellus that are not related to hydraulic fracturing activities.

Indeed, these researchers found a much more likely culprit for this methane than the development of shale.  In reviewing, the Pennsylvania Groundwater Information System- a database of wells, springs and groundwater quality throughout Pennsylvania- researchers found:

“[M]ost water wells completed in the Catskill formation (bearing significant thermogenic gas) contain only limited grouting, and are unsealed so as to draw groundwater from multiple water-bearing horizons and-or fractures.”

The study also examined whether or not natural gas production can exacerbate these previously existing conditions leading to an increased likelihood of methane intrusion in this area and others.   The study split its data into two sets including those located in “gas producing areas” (within 1 km of natural gas operation developed prior to 2011) and those in “non-production areas” (no wells developed within 1km prior to study).  In comparing these samples the study found:

[I]t was noticeable that methane concentrations in water well samples exhibit no relationship to existing [natural] gas production activities.

The studies observations seem to confirm findings of a November 2011 study conducted by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania which found no significant relationship of methane concentrations in water wells and correlated distance from natural gas production operations.

Adding to all of this the study also examined historical data regarding methane’s presence in water in the region. In reviewing over 200 years of records the study found that methane  has been present in the area in significant quantities long before natural gas development began- dating as far back as the 1800′s.

Table 1- Published records of gas shows in water and oil wells developed in Susquehanna County over the past 200 years

The study paints a well researched picture that methane in the area is in no way associated with natural gas production but instead is a natural part of the sandstone aquifer, and immediately underlying rock strata, which are highly charged with methane, filled with natural fractures aiding its quick passage,  and are interspersed with many water wells that “lack proper sealing and casing” thus enabling migration.

The study did make one very important correlation; namely, that methane’s presence in water wells in the region correlates strongly to topography.  In fact, the study found “a clear relationship with surface topography, with measurably higher dissolved methane concentrations in water wells located in valleys relative to upland areas”.  This was evident in the break-down of samples collected for the study.  While only 51 percent of the samples obtained with methane came from wells in a valley setting, approximately 88 percent of well samples containing dissolved methane  concentration in excess of 7,000ppb (current action level established by PA DEP) were located in low lying areas.

These results are supported by historical data as well.  Testimony from water well developers  in Susquehanna County note that water wells with gas shows are most commonly observed in valleys.  In addition, similar conditions were observed in a study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in West Virginia in 1997-2005 where data showed significant methane concentrations existed only in wells locate in valley or hillsides as opposed to those found on hilltops.

This critical info likely won’t deter future attempts by folks likes of Josh Fox and Mark Ruffalo  to blame all methane in water on hydraulic fracturing.  But it will go a long way in helping the residents of Pennsylvania understand the unique factors of their geology hopefully leading to the development of suggested standards in the proper construction and maintenance of private water wells.

Dimock residents have put up with a continuous barrage of insults and hyperbole over the last three years as Josh Fox, Bobbie Kennedy, Jr. and like-minded charlatans have abused them in the name of natural gas obstructionism.  They have watched and listened as professional activists use the power of the press to perpetuate the myth that Dimock water is polluted.  They have tolerated the incessant meddling of others in the affairs of their community.  Last night, however, one meddler, Mayor Ryan of Binghamton, who apparently has trouble running his own city, went just a bit too far — and residents gave him the heave-ho.  See for yourself and note how Ryan tries to intimidate Township officials with direct legal threats:

Residents also spoke out on the absurdity of what has happened to their community as natural gas opponents have latched onto it as a symbol and tool to make their case, weak tough it may be.  There’s little more that needs to said beyond what the people of Dimock themselves said last night, so take a look:

This is far from the end of the story and we’ll have more to report very soon, I expect, so stay tuned.

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.

(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?

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:

• “[T]he water well completion report for Mr. Markham’s well shows that it penetrated at least four different coal beds. The occurrence of methane in the coals of the Laramie Formation has been well documented in numerous publications by the Colorado Geological Survey, the United States Geological Survey, and the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists dating back more than 30 years.”

• “Laboratory analysis confirmed that the Markham [well] contained biogenic methane typical of gas that is naturally found in the coals of the Laramie–Fox Hills Aquifer. This determination was based on a stable isotope analysis, which effectively ‘finger-printed’ the gas as biogenic, as well as a gas composition analysis, which indicated that heavier hydrocarbons associated with thermogenic gas were absent.”

• “[A]ll oil and gas wells near the Markham well were drilled and hydraulically fractured in 1991, except for two wells that were fractured in 2005 and 2006 … The records do not reflect any pressure failures or other problems associated with these wells that would indicate a loss of fracture fluid or gas from the well bore into the surrounding geologic formations.”

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:

• “It’s our experience in Pennsylvania that we have not had one case in which the fluids used to break off the gas from 5,000 to 8,000 feet underground have returned to contaminate ground water.” (Fmr. DEP secretary John Hanger, as quoted by Reuters, Oct. 4, 2010)

• “Just a note about fracking: First of all, it’s standard operating procedure in Pennsylvania. And it’s important to point out that we’ve never seen an impact to fresh groundwater directly from fracking.” (DEP’s Scott Perry, May 27, 2010)

• “If there was fracturing of the producing formations that was having a direct communication with groundwater, the first thing you would notice is the salt content in the drinking water. It’s never happened. After a million times across the country, no one’s ever documented drinking water wells that have actually been shown to be impacted by fracking.” (Perry)

• “How many wells has fracturing damaged? I assume you’re referring to ‘how many drinking water wells.’? And in our experience, it’s been zero.” (Perry)

• “I think some of the criticism has been useful, and I think some of it is uninformed, and some of it deliberately uniformed. There are some folks who want to shut down the [shale] industry and are willing to say anything to accomplish that goal.” (Hanger, as quoted by ProPublica, Feb. 10, 2010)

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:

• “I’m 36, grew up in New York City.  One of my earliest memories is of the 1977 blackout when I was five.  My whole neighborhood was destroyed.  Every store window smashed and looted, Riverside Park [Upper West Side] was blaring with boom boxes and with heat.  It was a loud place to be.” (Josh Fox, interview with indieWIRE magazine, Feb. 4, 2009)

• “Josh Fox, the New York artist whose fears about Marcellus Shale … near his family’s summer home in northeastern Pennsylvania inspired the movie … Fox has practically become a full-time activist since the movie was released last year, and now spends much time organizing anti-drilling groups, which use the film for fund-raising purposes.” (Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 25, 2011)

• “Josh Fox is based in New York City” (media advisory sent by Gasland PR agent Josh Baran, Feb. 9, 2011)

READ MORE

• EID Fact-Check: Debunking GasLand (Fact Sheet)

• Frm. PADEP Sec. John Hanger: GasLand’s Josh Fox is a “Propagandist”

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.’”

• Fact-Check: Colorado State Regulatory Office Debunks Gasland

• Denver Business Journal: “In Colorado, COGCC officials have said repeatedly that the state agency — after years of testing — has never found a link between fracking and groundwater contamination.” (11/1/10)

• Financial Times: Claims in the film are “Absurd”

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.”

• Longtime NYT Editor, Columnist on GasLand: “One-sided, flawed … in the Michael Moore mode”

• Towanda (PA) Daily Review: “If you want a relatively quick overview of the natural gas phenomenon, watch the 60 Minutes program. And by way of contrast, see “Gasland” and learn for yourself the difference between a responsible report and a hatchet job.” (Editorial, 1/19/10)

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

Energy In Depth – a national coalition leading the efforts of debunking GasLand and holding its Manhattan-based director and anti-natural gas activist Josh Fox accountable – has taken these facts directly to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. EID’s executive director, Lee Fuller, sent a letter earlier today to the Academy. This from E&E News:

An industry group sent a letter today to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, saying that a litany of errors in the anti-drilling film should render it ineligible for best documentary feature.

“The filmmaker alternates between misstating and outright ignoring basic and verifiable facts related to the impact of these activities on the health and welfare of humans, wildlife and the environment,” said Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy In Depth (EID), in a letter today to the academy.

Fuller wrote that the errors he cites demonstrate that the film does not live up to the academy’s requirement that award winners must maintain an “emphasis … on fact and not on fiction.”

Key Letter Excerpts (NOTE: Click HERE to view):

• As found on the Academy’s official website, on a page entitled “Special Rules for the Documentary Awards,” a feature-length documentary … must maintain an “emphasis … on fact and not on fiction.” As we demonstrate below and in the attached, the film GasLand…falls short of this description in a number of significant ways.
• GasLand puts forth a thesis on natural gas development in the United States founded on a mistaken understanding of the process required to access these resources, and factually incorrect interpretation of the myriad rules and regulations in place designed to safeguard those operations wherever they may take place.
• GasLand draws heavily on testimonials from individuals who actively oppose natural gas development in general, and the use of hydraulic fracturing … many of the people and stories featured in GasLand are the same people and stories featured in a forerunner to the film released in 2009 called Split Estate, which, although committing many of the same errors as the Academy Award nominee, received, for whatever reason, none of the hype.
• The many errors, inconsistencies and outright falsehoods catalogued in the appendix attached to this letter – and the many more we withheld for sake of brevity – cast serious doubt on GasLand’s worthiness for this most honored award, and directly violate both the letter and spirit of the published criteria that presumably must be met by GasLand’s competitors in this category.

http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_17222056

“Gasland” vs. Colorado
By Vincent Carroll
The Denver Post
01/30/201

When President Obama challenged Congress last week in his State of the Union to set a goal that “80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources” by 2035, he pointedly included natural gas in the mix. So would anyone remotely familiar with the obstacles to relying solely upon renewables.

But don’t tell that to Josh Fox, director of the film “Gasland,” which has been nominated for an Oscar. Natural gas “contributes to global warming and climate change,” he told reporter David Brancaccio last year on “NOW” on PBS. “It will run out. . . . We’re transitioning from fossil fuels to other fossil fuels? It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Perhaps this attitude explains the liberties Fox takes. In one scene replayed in the PBS report, for example, a man puts a flame to his faucet, which bursts into a ball of fire. Talk about fallout drilling fallout!

Except for one problem: The man lives in Weld County, and his well has been thoroughly investigated by Colorado regulators — and specifically by scientists at the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. Their verdict, issued Sept. 30, 2008: “There are no indications of any oil- and gas-related impacts to your water well.”

So is the commission in bed with industry? Hardly. When the legislature revamped the agency in 2007 and ordered a rewrite of drilling rules, the industry threw a fit. Their complaints reverberated so loudly that Republicans thought they had an issue to exploit against former Gov. Bill Ritter — until he decided not to run for a second term.

So what does explain a faucet bursting into flame? As the commission explains in its “Gasland Correction Document” (see it at cogcc.state.co.us), “Methane gas is common in water wells in Colorado. It occurs naturally . . . as a gas in coal or black shale seams” and “as a byproduct of the decay of organic matter.”

Commercial natural gas is also created by the decomposition of organic matter, but in “rocks buried deeper within the Earth.” It also consistently contains “heavier hydrocarbons such as propane, butane, pentane and hexanes.”

The well in question extended 530 feet into the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, which contains methane gas, and had “penetrated at least four different coal beds.” Tough luck, but no scandal.

In reading the commission’s reports, you can’t help but be impressed by its thoroughness. When gas drilling is implicated, its analysts say so. “Gasland” depicts three Weld County landowners and one in Garfield County with wells allegedly polluted by gas development. The state linked one of those cases — and only one — to drilling.

The filmmaker claims that the remarkable surge in drilling across the nation and soaring estimates of recoverable gas reserves represent not a boon, as most energy realists believe, but a threat.

“It’s looking like this is at the expense of our water throughout America,” he told Brancaccio, pointing in particular to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as the culprit. Yet when contamination has occurred in Colorado, it’s been linked to spills or unauthorized releases, for example, or failures in the cement or casing in a well. But fracking itself, in which high-pressure fluid (typically 99 percent or more water but also various chemical compounds) is injected into rock formations containing natural gas, has not been implicated.

Colorado has had “no verified incident of hydraulic fracturing harming groundwater,” commission director David Neslin told me — either from fracking chemicals or methane from the gas well itself. Which is not surprising, since the chemicals or gas would usually have to migrate through thousands of feet of impervious shale first.

Neslin said he was “disappointed” in “Gasland,” noting his agency receives “dozens of complaints every year that water wells have been impacted. All are investigated. A relatively small number result in confirmation that the problem is attributable to gas development.” When that occurs, his outfit orders remedial action.

Meanwhile, as Neslin told an Environmental Protection Agency hearing last year, the commission requires periodic tests for “over 2,000 water wells in the San Juan Basin in Southwestern Colorado . . . . Thousands of oil and gas wells in that basin have been hydraulically fractured, and if fracturing fluids were reaching these water wells, then you would expect changes in the chemical composition of the water.”

And yet no such changes have been detected.

Energy production is an industrial process that involves its share of problems, accidents and, yes, pollution. We can try to deal with those side effects reasonably, as Colorado and many states do, or we can spread fear. But if we want to take the reasonable approach, it will require first of all a recognition, in Neslin’s words, that “just because someone can light their tap on fire doesn’t mean their water has been contaminated by an oil or gas well.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/opinion/columnists/2011/01/nothing-hot-air-gasland

Nothing but hot air in ‘Gasland’
By Mark Hemingway
Jan 30 2011 – 8:05pm

For anyone who cares about the environment and the economy over glamour and gossip, the biggest Oscar surprise of 2011 is that the film “Gasland” was nominated for best documentary.

While Hollywood is typically in the business of creating legends, one would expect films nominated for this particular Oscar to have some tangible relationship to the truth. You’d be very hard-pressed to say that about “Gasland.”

The film explores the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” This is a process in which a solution that is 99 percent water and sand — along with tiny amounts of chemicals — is pumped into rock strata deep underground at very high pressure to help extract natural gas.

According to Gasland, fracking pollutes groundwater with terrible consequences. But there’s no credible evidence that this is happening. None.

Oil and natural gas engineers have used this process more than a million times in this country to harvest otherwise unreachable oil and natural gas deposits. A thorough EPA study has concluded fracking is safe.

And the head of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Drinking Water Protection Division told Congress last year that there’s not a single documented instance of fracking polluting groundwater.

Nonetheless, it’s generally agreed that “Gasland” is a slick piece of agitprop. The film’s pivotal scene involves a Colorado family turning on their water taps and so much gas comes out that they light them on fire.

However, the state of Colorado’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission issued a press release stating that they had investigated the flaming water taps of the landowners in 2008 and 2009 and concluded it was naturally occurring methane, unrelated to oil and gas drilling.

“Unfortunately, ‘Gasland’ does not mention our … finding and dismisses our Markham finding out of hand,” notes the commission.

One of the subjects of the film is John Hanger, head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Hanger is “a liberal who spent years in the mainstream environmental movement.”

After watching it, Hanger called the film “fundamentally dishonest” and “a deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect.”

Shortly after “Gasland” premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and won a special jury prize last year, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., then head of House Energy and Commerce Committee, ordered hearings about the safety of fracking and the need for federal regulations of the process.

Waxman is one of Congress’ most tenacious liberals, and after issuing subpoenas to eight energy companies, he mysteriously dropped the probe pending further study.

Then last October, Scott Anderson, a senior policy adviser for the Environmental Defense Fund, told the publication Energy and Environment that “in the vast majority of cases, if wells are constructed right and operated right, hydraulic fracturing will not cause a problem.”

As for the need to federally regulate fracking, Anderson was not concerned about it.

“The states actually have a lot of knowledge and experience in regulating well construction and operation. We think that states have every reason to be able to tackle this issue and do it well,” he said.

The Environmental Defense Fund is one of the country’s biggest and most liberal activist organizations. If they say fracking is not a problem, it’s not a problem.

Of course, we all know why “Gasland” was nominated. Hollywood is largely comprised of bleeding-heart environmentalists. But a bleeding heart shouldn’t make you soft in the head.

Whatever your political sympathies, you can’t ignore the evidence that “Gasland” is pure propaganda, not a documentary.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has already damaged its reputation by nominating “Gasland.” It would truly be embarrassing if they actually gave it the award.

MORE INFO DEBUNKING GASLAND

EID Fact-Check: Debunking GasLand (Fact Sheet)
Frm. PADEP Sec. John Hanger: GasLand’s Josh Fox is a “Propagandist”
Fact-Check: Colorado State Regulatory Office Debunks Gasland
Denver Business Journal: “In Colorado, COGCC officials have said repeatedly that the state agency — after years of testing — has never found a link between fracking and groundwater contamination.” (11/1/10)
Financial Times: Claims in the film are “Absurd”
Longtime NYT Editor, Columnist on GasLand: “One-sided, flawed … in the Michael Moore mode”
Towanda (PA) Daily Review: “If you want a relatively quick overview of the natural gas phenomenon, watch the 60 Minutes program. And by way of contrast, see “Gasland” and learn for yourself the difference between a responsible report and a hatchet job.” (Editorial, 1/19/10)
Wash. Examiner Columnist: “Gasland is more agit-prop than factual documentary”