VIDEO: Gasland Director Caught Using Deception (What Else Is New?)

Earlier this week, we explained the fraud that underlies the iconic scenes in both Gasland and Gasland Part II. This was, of course, in addition to the complete debunk of the second film that we posted back in April. It was clear that, although the facts do not support Josh Fox, our friends in the media needed a reminder that his claims have been contradicted by state regulatory investigations.

Following up on those widely disseminated responses, we decided that there was still a greater need to explain the deception in Josh Fox’s films. So we decided to create a video, which you can see above, that lays out how the Gasland films have willfully and shamefully ignored the determinations of state regulatory agencies, solely to inflate risks and gin up fear among its viewers.

The video raises an important question: Who is a more credible authority on issues related to hydraulic fracturing: Environmental regulators who actually inspect oil and gas wells, or a New York City filmmaker whose movies have been called “fundamentally dishonest,” “pure propaganda,” and “science denial”?

Decide for yourself.

  • Steven Lipsky
    Posted at 18:44h, 12 July Reply

    The gas from the hose is gas venting out the top of my water well.
    This is gas coming from the head space of my well and testing shows is the same gas in my water. The garden hose shown is vented gas from my well and the TRRC, TCEQ, EPA, OIG, Justice Dept , Parker County Fire Marshall Office and many others all can confirm this. Many of them used the hose to collect gas samples for lab testing this is including a contractor from Range.

  • Bill
    Posted at 06:51h, 09 September Reply

    Mr. Everly,

    I see you cannot reply to the man you accuse of faking his dilemma. Let’s see you are sitting in D.C. commenting on things you are no where near. Hmmm.
    Try living next to an injection or fracking well. Then have a glass of water out of one of those water wells or hang around the site during drilling phase. Better yet pitch a tent next to a condensate tank for a night or two if you think it’s so safe.

    I can almost believe you if you used sources that had no ties to the Gas & Oil industry. Just another blogger who doesn’t understand that ALL energy policy is written WITH and by the industry and not for the people.

    The dollar always speaks louder than people’s health.

    Common sense with mother nature here:
    If gas pockets are trapped in rock, even with a water well, and there was no issue with gas prior to the invasion of drilling, pressure, and fluids. Regardless if it passed through 10 shale shelves or pockets.

    But fracking shows up and ta! da! methane in the water.

    How can you possibly pro port that as “naturally occurring”?

    Try to add mechanically induced or externally contributing factors. to your vocabulary, you won’t sound like such a sell out or a fracky lacky…

    I just hope you can man up when the whole fracking industry turns into a national Love Canal (you probably have no idea about that). The contamination reports are piling up. No more allegations now there’s facts and investigations going on…

    • Steve Everley
      Posted at 14:23h, 09 September Reply

      Hi Bill, thanks for your comment. In my post I have cited the findings from an investigation completed by the Railroad Commission of Texas. This regulatory body looked into the claims behind the flaming hose and determined – as a result of their investigation and analysis – that nearby natural gas wells “have not contributed and are not contributing to contamination of any domestic water wells.” For the complete report, see here:

  • James H
    Posted at 17:46h, 02 January Reply

    How do you explain the fact that the gas that is coming out of these peoples water supply is “fingerprinted” to the gas that is being produced as a result of nearby hydraulic fracturing?

    I find it funny that you keep pointing back to the regulatory agencies as substantiating the fact that fracking and drilling are not the source of methane and other flammable gas contamination of peoples wells and aquifers.
    Gasland clearly points out the regulatory changes ( as a result of political pressure ) that have brought this about.

    I would like to point out that I clearly understand the need for America to reduce it dependency on foreign energy products. I actually believe that drilling could be a good thing for America. What I dont understand is that with all the money to be made by this industry why it has to be done in such an irresponsible way. 20% failure rate on well casings from day one? Is this industry not capable of advancing its own technology to solve these issues and thus prevent such dramatic anti industry displays like the flaming gas hose?

    • Steve, Energy In Depth
      Posted at 18:04h, 02 January Reply

      Hi James, thanks for your questions.

      First of all, the gas was actually fingerprinted to be originating from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale, the latter of which is the formation from which Range was producing. EPA admitted under oath that it did not test for the presence of nitrogen in the samples it took in 2010, and Strawn and Barnett gas have almost identical fingerprints — except for nitrogen, of which Strawn gas is known to contain high quantities (Barnett does not). Here is a link to the full deposition, where John Blevins, representing the EPA, said “I don’t believe that I could say EPA has an expert to opine on the nitrogen levels within any gas source.”

      The methane discovered in the water wells in question also contained high levels of nitrogen. See more here:

      In addition, a nearby resident actually drilled her water well into the gas-bearing Strawn formation several years before.

      The failure rate you cite is pure invention. Actual data show that the failure rate is a fraction of a percent, somewhere around 0.01 percent and 0.03 percent, based on an examination of tens of thousands of wells. That still means there’s room for improvement, but the well failure rates cited by activists like Josh Fox and Tony Ingraffea are designed purely to scare people, and they are based on phony interpretations of statistics. In some cases, they have been disputed by the very sources they cited. You can read more about the bogus and inflated “failure claims” here:

      Once again, thanks for reading, and hopefully this clears up any misconceptions that you had.


  • Felix
    Posted at 22:45h, 01 December Reply

    Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed!
    Extremely useful information specifically the final phase :
    ) I maintain such info a lot. I was seeking this particular information for a long time.
    Thanks and good luck.

Post A Comment