From Flaming Faucet to Flaming Hose: The Continuing Fraud of Gasland

When Josh Fox released his movie “Gasland” in 2010, he made it clear from the very beginning that the iconic scene would be the “flaming faucet” from Weld County, Colorado. And why not? It coupled fears of water contamination with vivid imagery – which was exactly what Fox wanted to do with the film.

In case you’ve forgotten, here’s that clip:

The problem, though, is that two years before the release of Gasland, Colorado regulators had investigated that exact case, and determined hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas development had nothing to do with it. “There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well,” according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission report.

After Gasland was released, COGCC noted once again that the landowner’s water well “contained biogenic gas that was not related to oil and gas activity.”

The iconic scene on which Fox hinged the movie’s credibility (not to mention his own) was blatant and deliberate deception.

Fast forward to 2013 and the release of Gasland Part II. The iconic scene in this film? A man in Parker County, Texas, lighting the end of a garden hose on fire, which the audience is supposed to believe is a result of gas drilling.

Here’s that scene:

There you go again, Josh.

According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:

“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”

Not only that, but two years ago state regulators investigated that incident and determined the source was natural seepage from a shallower rock formation, and that nearby natural gas wells “have not contributed and are not contributing to contamination of any domestic water wells.”

As for the EPA, a senior official – Al “Crucify Them” Armendariz – initially worked in lockstep with local activists to pursue a baseless endangerment order against the operator of those wells, Range Resources. Extensive geochemical gas fingerprinting, however, showed a natural source for the methane – not drilling (or “fracking”). An EPA official later admitted under oath that the agency had not conducted extensive fingerprinting to find the source, and in 2012 the EPA dropped its case.

After the EPA withdrew the endangerment order, the Texas Railroad Commission – which regulates oil and gas in Texas – reaffirmed the lack of impact: “Range Resources’ Parker County gas wells did not contaminate groundwater.”

As you can see, Gasland Part II is a film premised on the same dishonesty, the same deception, and the same careless disregard for the facts as the original. The fact that Fox made it so deliberately misleading makes it that much more unfortunate, and it’s why we think a better title for the movie is Gasland Too.

What do you think? Do you plan to watch Gasland Part II?

  • Steve Rupert
    Posted at 11:10h, 09 July Reply

    I just listened to the NPR show with Josh Fox and Steve Everley. I commend Steve for taking the leap into the lion’s den (so to speak), given that the host Diane Rehm was obviously already “on Josh Fox’s team” before the show started. It was never a fair debate. However, I was very disappointed that Steve never directly answered any of Ms. Rehm’s questions, especially about Matt Pitzerella’s “Psy-Ops” comments. Our side of the story came through as fragmented and unsubstantiated as Fox’s. I doubt that we made any converts, or even stimulated any new thoughts from any of the listeners. I know first hand that refuting these type of claims is very difficult, and doing it over the phone through an obviously hostile radio program is even more difficult, but frankly I expected a better showing from EID.

  • Kim Feil
    Posted at 13:53h, 13 July Reply

    This is the DFW TX local news media’s video on this subject

    • Steve Everly
      Posted at 09:31h, 16 July Reply

      Thanks Kim. The WFAA report unfortunately linked the gas pressure at the well’s bradenhead (which is what prompted the Railroad Commission’s action) to the methane that appeared in the landowner’s water well. Fingerprinting and extensive testing, conducted back in 2011 (at a hearing that incorporated the Railroad Commission’s actions, on which the WFAA report focused), showed that the composition of the gas at the bradenhead is different from what’s in Mr. Lipsky’s water well. Additionally, pay close attention toward the end of that clip, as you’ll notice that local wells were documented as being flammable at least four years before gas drilling began in the area, and a local water tank has had a FLAMMABLE sign on it for that very same reason: high levels of naturally occurring methane.

      Again, this information is not new, and was part of the focus of hearings back in January 2011. You can find some of the most relevant documents examining this case on our website:

      Thanks for reading.


  • Gaz de schiste: Fracknation vs Gasland | TVQC
    Posted at 00:41h, 23 July Reply

    […] En passant pourquoi avoir fait un Gasland 2? Simplement parce que Fracknation avait complètement démoli et exposé les mensonges de Gasland, alors Josh Fox a essayé de faire un 2e film pour sauver la face, mais ce dernier est tout aussi rempli de mensonges et de manipulations que le premier. Voir: From Flaming Faucet to Flaming Hose: The Continuing Fraud of Gasland […]

  • Ron Low
    Posted at 00:19h, 06 August Reply

    How come all the people interested in representing Gasland as some sort of hoax are hooked to the energy industry? I’m interested in the truth, not spin.

    When you talk about wells being flammable years before drilling commenced, that is compelling. How hard would it be to sample a large number of such wells near every drill before drilling? In fact why is that not required by law?

    DOES THE GAS EXTRACTION INDUSTRY HAVE SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS to EPA rules that would otherwise impact ecologically disruptive activities?

    IS American LNG being exported?

    IS fracking as dirty as claimed by Fox, when one accounts for all the energy costs of extraction, processing, and conveyance, plus leaked methane, leaky spent-water holding basins, etc?

    If one guy pulled the wool over Fox’s eyes that does not make the whole show invalid, any more than BP pleading guilty to hiding evidence makes the whole fossil fuel industry corrupt.

    • Steve Everley
      Posted at 11:19h, 07 August Reply

      Hi Ron, thank you for your questions. Below are answers along with additional resources for you to access.

      Producers often conduct pre-drill testing in areas they plan on developing (it’s required in Illinois, per the new law signed by Gov. Quinn), and scientists have documented private water well quality problems for decades. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed testing in Sullivan Co., PA – in an area where zero natural gas wells have been drilled. The USGS analysis found the water wells registered high levels of methane and also contained concentrations of arsenic, boron, bromide, chloride, fluoride, lithium, molybendum, and sodium. This research, once again, reaffirms that naturally occurring methane has been, and is still, present in the groundwater in many areas of the country, regardless of whether natural gas development is taking place. For the complete USGS study see here:

      Hydraulic fracturing has been in practice for over 60 years and is tightly regulated on a state-by-state level, in order to account for the varying geologies of different states, as opposed to blanket Federal regulation that would amount to a one-size-fits-all process, which simply does not work. The EPA has praised the states on numerous occasions for adequately regulating hydraulic fracturing.

      Natural gas has been imported into and exported from the United States for years. Pipelines delivering natural gas to Mexico, for example, are operating today. There are projects underway to increase exports (which means reducing our trade deficit) to countries with which the United States does not have free trade agreements, but each one of those must be individually approved, based on a public interest determination, by the U.S. Department of Energy. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must also approve those projects.

      Josh Fox’s films have been reviewed and found to grossly mischaracterize both the HF process and the oil and gas industry. For more information on that, see here:


      • Robert Stone
        Posted at 13:32h, 25 February Reply

        Just came across this bit of information about the staged flame demonstrations, so I’m coming late to the party…. Shame on the anti-fracking contingent for trying to sway public opinion with fraudulent displays. That being said, what about the economic costs in reduced property values for local property/homeowners? Especially in light of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson’s contention that he will be harmed by the increased traffic and noise that a water tank adjacent to his property, built to service the fracking industry, would cause? What is your reaction to his contention? To see the article go to I guess it’s who’s ox is getting gored, right? I look forward to your response.

  • The Trouble with Transition | SkeptEco
    Posted at 18:21h, 30 January Reply

    […] The “flaming faucets” scene in Gasland is a fraud btw: the cases filmed were from biogenc methane, not fracking. […]

  • Fact Checking Optional Among Fracking Opponents - Natural Gas Now
    Posted at 06:52h, 31 January Reply

    […] assets in Texas, but these aren’t the one’s she’s referring to when she mentions flaming hose man Steve Lipsky, who also played loose with the facts, of course. There is no connection between the two companies. […]

  • Fracking opponent confuses Range Resources (RRL), which is the Australian company for Range Resources, Ltd - ShaleNOW
    Posted at 07:36h, 31 January Reply

    […] some limited assets in Texas, but these aren’t the one’s she’s referring to when she mentionsflaming hose man Steve Lipsky, who also played loose with the facts, of course. There is no connection between the two companies. […]

  • More on Gasland from EID – From Flaming Faucet to Flaming Hose: The Continuing Fraud of Gasland | Penneco Investors: Resources and Energy Information
    Posted at 10:54h, 23 July Reply

    […] suggest you read the Energy In Depth article and learn how these fraudulent claims in the films are misleading […]

  • Millionaire Congressman Has Some Fracking Explaining To Do |
    Posted at 11:54h, 02 August Reply

    […] coal beds” containing methane, the regulators concluded. So the “flaming faucet” scene was a sham, but Fox built his movie around it anyway. This is something Rep. Polis knew – or should have […]

  • look at these guys
    Posted at 13:50h, 23 August Reply

    Oh my goodness! Impressive article dude! Thank you, However
    I am experiencing problems with your RSS. I don’t know the
    reason why I can’t join it. Is there anybody getting the same RSS problems?

    Anyone who knows the answer can you kindly respond?

  • New Endocrine Disruption Study a Compilation of Debunked Anti-Fracking “Research”
    Posted at 17:15h, 31 August Reply

    […] the landowner had hooked the hose up to a gas line, not a water line.  That’s, of course, the iconic scene in Gasland […]

  • Oil and Gas Worker Safety: What You Need to Know
    Posted at 12:36h, 01 October Reply

    […] same documentary filmmaker who brought us the fraudulent flaming faucets and hoses of the Gasland series is returning with a new short film that suggests oil and gas companies […]

  • Fracking and Florida: The Facts
    Posted at 10:55h, 27 October Reply

    […] fracturing is frequently – often intentionally – mischaracterized, not least because “fracking” sounds like a word you wouldn’t say in […]

  • Mark Ruffalo to Rehash Long Discredited Fracking Claims in “Dear President Obama”
    Posted at 17:50h, 18 March Reply

    […] President Obama” will likely rehash the flaming faucets of Gasland, even though those were proven to be a fraud. Meanwhile, the EPA has completed its comprehensive, five year study of fracking and groundwater, […]

  • Top Five Science Denying Claims in Bill McKibben’s Latest Call to Ban Fracking
    Posted at 18:47h, 23 March Reply

    […] course, falls back on the most debunked documentary in history with the flaming faucets that have proven to be a fraud. As EID has noted many times, two years before Gasland was even released, the Colorado Oil and […]

  • With Dear Governor Brown, Mark Ruffalo Goes from Weakness to Weakness
    Posted at 17:27h, 27 April Reply

    […] Anthony Ingraffea (see above), but disgraced filmmaker Josh Fox of the Gasland films (remember the flaming faucet?) and anti-fracking activist and poet, masquerading as an objective scientist, Sandra Steingraber, […]

  • New CU Study Finds Fracking not to Blame for Methane in DJ Basin Water Wells
    Posted at 17:44h, 11 July Reply

    […] claim of anti-fracking activists, going all the way back to Josh Fox’s 2010 film Gasland, which depicted a Weld County man lighting his tap water on fire. And researchers even addressed Fox’s […]

  • EPA Finalized Groundwater Report Reinforces No Widespread, Systemic Impacts from Fracking
    Posted at 13:35h, 13 December Reply

    […] EPA began this investigation five years ago, activists hoping to capitalize on Josh Fox’s fraudulent flaming hoses, claimed that they were looking forward to the results. In a March 19, 2010 a New York Times […]

  • Anti-Fracking Activists Indoctrinating Kids in U.S. Schools | HYDROCARBON REPORTS
    Posted at 09:52h, 21 June Reply

    […] course, the use of a cliché “flaming faucet” photo is a blatant attempt to exploit the fraudulent “flaming faucet” scene from Gasland and further perpetuate the myth that fracking contaminates drinking water. Notably, […]

Post A Comment