I watched Jon Stewart's interview with Josh Fox, the author and director of Gasland the other night. I had NO IDEA that was going on.

We have a vacation home on the perimeter of the Marcellus Shale deposits in northeastern Pennsylvania and the papers have been covering the issue. My brother works for GE in the water treatment department and he was telling me about the huge number of trucks that are needed to haul the water in and out of the the drilling area. The drilling companies are doing their usual PR and minimizing any environmental damage that might result. The environmental groups are fighting for strict regulations. The Delaware River Basin Committee is concerned about the effect the drilling will have on the River and have issued a statement.

Many homeowners are hoping that they can cash in and retire.
Yet some homeowners who did allow drilling on their land have reported that their wells have been polluted and are forced to use bottled water.

The Philadelphia Inquirer recently had a huge article on the topic and what appears to be the Governor Rendell's lack of due diligence. He's all for the drilling and doesn't want to impose too many restrictions on the companies until the wells are producing.

Me feelings? I fear it's going to be another environmental mess caused by corporate profit motives and by many Americans desire for abundant fuel and energy sources.

Here is a link that might be useful: Delaware River Basin Committee

1. Have you seen the documentary;

Yes, it's sensationalized trash (definately not a documentary in the real sense of that word) but it sells well.

2. What was your reaction, or did you already know the facts about fracking for natural gas/oil;

See above, also search the internet for the debunked "facts" presented in the little drama and you'd see it's full of crap. Fracking is old old old technology and is safely deployed around the world, has been for sixty plus years actually. This movie actually does not share "facts" so after watching it, you are no more educated on the "facts" in regards to fracking than you were before you watched it.

3. Do you live near a natural gas/oil collection
area;

Yes

4. If the answer to #2 is yes, what is your experience;

Well there again the "facts" haven't been presented here to the public. I know the actual facts (real verses made up by Mr Fox) and it's a safe practice.

But again, this kind of crap sells well. Even Mr. Fox admits he leaves facts behind for drama on occasion.

Sadly people will watch this and demonize the industry unfairly. It's crap, but then again if it were factual it would be boring and you'd not see it on HBO :) Fracking is actually a pretty boring/standard process in the industry (oil and gas). It's not killing people all over the world, nor ruining rivers, no fish or frogs have developed three toes....etc. It's just boring stuff done to draw out more resources the public demands to have.

Again, the facts are boring, so they'll never make good television. Which is sad, because now people will think this is factual and live in fear when that's entirely unnecessary.

Here is a link that might be useful: One of many debunk sites on this movie.

It's always good to hear the other side of the story. I would have liked to have read the explanation for the video clip on the Jon Stewart show purporting to show gas coming out of that guy's kitchen faucet.

I saw it, it was actually pretty impressive (the video). Totally inaccurate :) But cool to watch LOL

There are actually zero confirmed cases of groundwater contamination in 1 million applications over 60 years of fracking history caused by fracking. The incident with the faucet was proven to be naturally occuring methane in the water from their well. (Yes it can happen) but not related to the industry in any way.

1. Yes. Fled to the computer to see where the wells were here. The natural gas wells in my state are concentrated in a specific area: Appalachia...but so is most mining.

2. Horrified by the process. Even if the wells aren't going bad (and each side clearly has their labs backing up their position), the resources involved in fracking are staggering. The truckloads, the drilling, the chemicals, and the water involved...it seems so wasteful. I realize that many power sources involve negative impacts, but perhaps solar and wind farms are a tad less dangerous than natural gas mining?

3. No, but there are pipelines bringing the gas from the south to the north running through Virginia.

Interesting quote from the Wall Street Journal below. By the way, he is not a documentary producer. He became interested in the topic when he was contacted to lease his land for mining.

There's a video from a Daily Show interview on that page, too.

"Foxs documentary has ruffled a few feathers and several natural gas-affiliated organizations are claiming that Fox has his facts wrong. But Fox says all the facts speak for themselves and can be looked up. "The natural gas industryÂs PR system is so great, many people believe that natural gas is a good solution to climate change," he said. "But itÂs a dirty polluting fossil just like the others.""

Fracking is old old old technology

Actually, per the documentary, fracking at the pressures currently being used is new. The concept is old, but practices have evolved.

This is logical. If fracking was so old, we would have had these wells all over decades ago, before environmental impact studies and standards became more regulated.

graywings - may I ask if you've seen Gasland?

In the event you haven't seen "Gasland", Mr. Fox (the filmmaker) candidly admits at the beginning of the piece that he, Mr. Fox, became curious about this particular subject AFTER he received an offer of monetary compensation for access to his property in Pennsylvania for the sole purpose of drilling for natural gas. His film recounts what he learned through visiting homeowners that were adversely affected by the process of "fracking" in the western part of the Country was very disturbing to me.

I watched with my own eyes as three separate homeowners held cigarette-type lighters to their running water faucets and the "water" became engulfed in flames. I don't believe it was magic nor trick of the eye. There is obviously something flammable in the drinking water of those folks.

igloo - If memory serves me, you've mentioned that you and DH are involved in the energy business? Thank you for linking the article which I plan to read thoroughly. However, you claim that Mr. Fox is completely wrong and has inaccurately sensationalized the practice of fracking, but I cannot help but wonder as to your ability to stay neutral with regard to this matter given your connection to its process?

I do plan to continue to investigate this for myself and sincerely appreciate any and all information any poster to this forum brings to the table in this conversation.

The Delaware River Basin is the source of water that serves our well water. I would be lying if I were to honestly say, I am not bothered by what may come to pass in my own backyard.

graywings - may I ask if you've seen Gasland? >

No I haven't seen it, just the Jon Stewart- Josh Fox interview. It was the first I ever heard of this, and even if he has terribly misrepresented the subject, I'm glad he is raising the topic.

Mr. Fox (the filmmaker) candidly admits at the beginning of the piece that he, Mr. Fox, became curious about this particular subject AFTER he received an offer of monetary compensation for access to his property in Pennsylvania for the sole purpose of drilling for natural gas.

Yes, he said that in the interview as well.

Well actually, Mr. Fox became interested in it after his family was offered money to lease their vacation land (they are a wealthy new york family). He doesn't quite say that...he makes it seem as if poverty stems their interest in the funds and as if they would be his funds (it's family land, not his land).

Jeannie, it's not a documentary, it's a fictional story. There are so many made up facts proven wrong it's pitiful. But obviously it works dosen't it? Fracking is very old technology. Until recently (last 30 or so years) it was more often used in drilling for oil verses natural gas because natural gas was not a viable (profitable) product to bring to market. We use the process, it's old, very old technology and not used the way he says it is (you use it after a deposit has quit preforming, it's not your initial route).

The number of trucks involved that he quoted are wrong. Every project uses different technology, including the trasnportation to get to the project. Sometimes no trucks are involved (we've heli serviced sites). Again, the "facts" are not remotely factual here.

Methane can occur naturally in the earth including in wells because they drill down into a pocket of it. Texas ranchers have been doing that trick (turning on the faucet and lighting it) for years. The wells shown in his little story were all proven to have natural pockets of gas that are caused by plant decay below ground. Not by the oil and gas industry, but by their local water authority when the wells were tested...but that does not make for good media either.

The science of gas just does not work this way, which is why a water table has not been contaminated via fracking. We're not talking about splitting the earth open and pouring down chemicals. We're talking about openings of less than a millimiter deep in the earth, FAR FAR below the water table. Fracking fluids (which are 99.9% water and sand as well as one or two chemicals, most of which are found in the food chain) can not rise up into the water table (it's not physically possible). But again, that fact wouldn't sell well now would it? Why use the truth when lies are so much more sensational?

This guy has no idea what he's talking about. He has been proven wrong many times (remember the fish the gas wells killed???? Actually that was not related to a gas well and he was proven to be lying prior to the movie coming out but did not correct it).

Yes we are in the industry. We drill for oil and gas, clean up wells (old sites) do many things including deal with fracking technology. We are ethical people and we do not destroy water tables, polute wells, endanger people's lifes etc. This drama is just that. A bunch of falsehoods made up literally to sell. There is no need for the industry to make up counter arguments to the story because they have science to prove their case, but no one wants to read that...it's boring and it's much more fun to believe that people like our family live their lives with no ethics, destroying the world just for monetary gain.

There is a reason that this was on HBO and not a chanel that would carry a scientific study.

I, too, believe that this documentary is not all factually based.

I understand igloochic's family is in the energy business, but my DH is very interested in enviromental issues. I have asked him (repeatedly) if he wants to watch GasLand. He has (repeatedly) said NO! that he understands through his research that the facts presented are not all factual, and he does not want to get those untrue facts in his mind. He prefers to be able to keep the facts clear in his mind.

I don't know specifically what research sites he went to, as he does a lot more research on these types of issues than I (actually I don't do any), but obviously he believes that this 'documentary' is of the type that is not completely true.

I wish 'documentaries' had to prove their facts before they were called a 'documentary', but I suppose that is another subject for discussion. It's like statistics - I learned in statistics class in college that you can take statistics and prove anything, you just need to know what side you're on.

Actually, many residents of the upper Delaware River Basin are now and have been in the very recent past offered significant sums of financial compensation in return for leases to the lands they own for the purpose of fracking for natural gas.

I happen to know this for a fact. I have a very close business associate who owns many more acres than Mr. Fox' family who has been solicited for the drilling rights on his property in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin. It doesn't really matter to me what Mr. Fox' or his families' financial status is. If he is as well off as you would like us to believe, it really crystalizes his claim of wanting to get all of the facts before surrendering his birthright. For he really doesn't need the money.

However, there are those pesky people with little to no means who have already been affected by fracking who were never consulted because fracking was done on lands which prior to 2005, were set aside for the preservation and use by such U.S. citizens. Lands much like the lands protected under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Clean Water Act,etc. I am sure you see where I am going with this.

I am no babe in the woods. In my former life (before birth of DD), I was involved in the defense litigation (Declaratory Judgment Actions) brought in the States of New York, New Jersey DEP and USEPA against certain insurance carriers that wrote liabilty insurance to those who participated in the dumping of both solid and liquid waste in both States. The DJ action against the insurers of these actors over a period of 50 plus years including generators, haulers, landowners who looked the other way whilst their farm properties were used as "clean landfills", as well as many others. These sites are now called Superfund Sites. I've read many lenthy remediation plans submitted in an effort to "clean up", as if, these polluted lands. I learned very quickly that individuals involved in the process of illegally polluting land will say and do anything to prevent light being cast on bad practice. I had the responsibility of reading transcript after transcript of testimony by those who felt that they were not polluting land, merely disposing of liquid trash, while looking the other way, not keeping accurate records of which chemical waste was being dumped and by whom.

I can't speak to your ethics, but it does give me pause that you are so vehemently arguing that Mr. Fox has it all wrong and is merely cashing in on his 15 minutes of fame, or that he is flat out lying. I don't believe the former or the latter.

I have reviewed the article linked by igloo and what is most poignant is the glaring absence of a discussion of the chemicals used in the fracking process. Of course, igloo you state that there are one or two chemicals used. I am afraid that is not at all true.

Anyone interested can file a formal application under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552, As Amended by Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048 to obtain a complete list of the chemicals used in the fracking process with regard to the area with which they are concerned. Sadly, the companies who are preying on landowners, never disseminate this bit of information.

Are you actually disputing that those principals involved in this extraction process testified before the Congressional Committee listing chemical after poisonous and/or carcinogenic chemical used in the fracking process? Or, were they testifying untruthfully when they listed said chemicals? Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways.

"We're not talking about splitting the earth open and pouring down chemicals. We're talking about openings of less than a millimiter deep in the earth, FAR FAR below the water table. Fracking fluids (which are 99.9% water and sand as well as one or two chemicals, most of which are found in the food chain) can not rise up into the water table (it's not physically possible)."

If one were to read this paragraph on its face it appears as though this process is entirely free of negative impact on our environment. Not so.

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2009 - Minutes Recorded:
statement of James F. Gennaro, Chair of the New York
City Council Committee on Environmental Protection:- "Given their method centers on direct use of 257 toxic chemicals for which there is no known filtration technology, a filtration system to the tune of many billions of dollars could only ensure partial protection for millions of people and would exclude private wells in rural areas.
Where is the environmental impact study that addresses these issues and puts the onus on the gas companies to satisfy a zero tolerance pollution standard?"

I think at this point there are two avenues available to those who are concerned about fracking for natural gas:
1. Do nothing; or,
2. Investigate on your own as many reports and documents with regard to the fracking process which are available on the internet by simply using your Google search engine.

I happened to find the above statement at www.state.nj.us/drbc/3-11-09_minutes.pdf.

This only begins to scrape the surface of this issue.

I think that perhaps this topic may not be at all appropriate for the Conversations side of this forum. I will ask that the powers that be remove the thread.

You didn't read anything I posted or the link did you? You've seen a highly inflamatory fictional video and you now call it fact. You want to believe this crap so you do and nothing will disuade you in that endeavor so fine, why bother?

I don't know...maybe I bother because of the very mean things you just said about my family and my friends? I didn't say people weren't being offered money for their leases....that's what is required to take gas from their property, their permission. That's a bad thing? When an oil or gas deposit is leased the person owning the property is paid for it. That's kind of how it works...and to the benefit of the landowner, which isn't done in most other countries where the government is considered to own the resource and can lease it at will.

As to Mr. Fox...how dramatic...surrendering his birthright. IT'S NOT HIS PROPERTY!! And no one is going to remove the land from the earth. It is there and still would be there after the gas is removed. Gad you speak as if several million acres of land are now missing or unusable after this is done. It's done all over the world and the land is still just as it was, but with less natural gas in the earth deep below it. People aren't keeling over by the millions after the process is finished.

You didn't quite listen to what I said....You don't make a coctail of 500 plus chemicals to frack. It's mostly sand and water and one or two chemicals, which are required to be disclosed to the proper authroities. The list of accepted or previously used chemicals is long, but that does not mean you use them all, just that they've been used in the past sixty years. The current chemical being used mostly is a biodegradable product which is also used in production of foods.

Look at hair dye...how long is the list of chemicals that have been used in the last how ever many years it's been out? Heck look at coca cola. Many are incredibly toxic and are no longer used because they're not safe but if I just post the list (using the logic of Mr. Fox) you would be given to believe that all of the chemicals are used still in one big vat of coctails. Nevermind that they likely can't be used together or are not available, it's more fun to picture the coctail. We don't have time on a site to mix 500 plus chemicals in the fracking fluid...one or two is used. They are always disclosed ALWAYS.

Read this perhaps????

State Regulators in their own words:

PENNSYLVANIA: "There has never been any evidence of fracking ever causing direct contamination of fresh groundwater in Pennsylvania or anywhere else." (PA DEPs Scott Perry, Scranton Times-Tribune, 4/2/10) NEW YORK: "I think is clear that when put into the proper context and perspective, the reported information shows that
the incidence of spills and other pollution events at modern
naturlal gas well sites is exceedingly low " (Alexander B.
"Pete" Grannis, commissioner of NY DEC, 12/30/09)

TEXAS: "Though hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 50 years in Texas, our records do not indicate a single documented
contamination case associated with hydraulic fracturing."
(Texas Railroad Commissions Victor Carrillo, 5/29/2009)

OHIO: "After 25 years of investigating citizen complaints of contamination, [our] geologists have not documented a single
incident involving contamination of ground water attributed to
hydraulic fracturing." (Scott Kell, deputy chief of Ohio DNR, 5/27/09)

NEW MEXICO: "[W]e have found no example of contamination of usable water where the cause was claimed to be hydraulic fracturing." (Mark Fesmire, director of NM Oil Conservation Division, 5/29/09) ALABAMA: "I can state with authority that there have been no documented cases of drinking water contamination caused
by such hydraulic fracturing operations in our state." (Barry H.
"Nick" Tew, Jr., Oil & Gas supervisor for Alabama, 5/27/09)

Neh you won't read that because it's boring and ruins your theory that we are destorying the world. You worked one case (totally unrelated by the way, but sure, paint us with that brush) and now for some reason that gives Mr. Foxes BS credibility? Come on, if you are intelligent you have to know that those are not related incidents...not even close and using that as your reason to paint the gas industry as evil is rediculous.

How about reading this....how about not just scraping the surface, but reading the scientific facts, the reports of agencies that reviewed the claims made by Mr. Fox and found them to be unfounded?

Look at the people used to debunk his story? Not always industry experts, but federal and state agencies, wild life agencies (he lies about species of animals in danger due to fracking...heck he makes some up) DSHS, etc. "fact after fact after fact" is addressed here. How anyone with half a brain can't read this, read the source, and understand this is crap I don't understand! But you don't want to...it's so much more fun to think that there's evil in the world and apparently I'm now among the evil. On a personal level...that's not only wrong, but incredibly insulting. We are ethical people providing YOU with a product you use every day of your life. We provide the product in the safest manner possible, not risking your life or the lifes of the people we work with. As proof that I'm evil you post the words of a city councilman who clearly knows nothing about what he's talking about given that the reports on what chemicals are used are filed, and that never are there 257 chemicals used in the process at any one time....no company stocks up on 257 chemicals just in case they want to mix them up. And that the science proves that the fracking fluids are not able to rise to the water table...it's not physically possible. Go ask a scientist, don't ask a city council member unless they are a scientist who works with the technology.

It's on HBO for a reason....it's pure fiction and outright lies. And yes it's a hot topic. You just insulted me beyond reason. I don't lie to protect our business. I tell the truth because I am ethical and honest, both in the business world and personally...I see no line that separates the two. We don't hurt people and being accused of that is actually beyond hurtful and definately "hot".

You won't read this because you don't want to know...but if anyone does want to see the debunking:

From Energy in Debth:
For an avant-garde filmmaker and stage director whose previous work has been recognized by the "Fringe Festival" of New York City, HBOs decision to air the GasLand documentary nationwide later this month represents Josh Foxs first real foray into the mainstream and, with the potential to reach even a portion of the networks 30 million U.S. subscribers, a potentially significant one at that.

But with larger audiences and greater fanfare come the expectation of a few basic things: accuracy, attention to detail, and original reporting among them. Unfortunately, in the case of this film, accuracy is too often pushed aside for simplicity, evidence too often sacrificed for exaggeration, and the same old cast of characters and anecdotes previously debunked simply lifted from prior incarnations of the film and given a new home in this one.

"Im sorry," Josh Fox once told a New York City magazine, "but art is more important than politics. Politics is people lying to you and simplifying everything; art is about contradictions." And so it is with GasLand: politics at its worst, art at its most contrived, and contradictions of fact found around every bend of the river. Against that backdrop, we attempt below to identify and correct some of the most egregious inaccuracies upon which the film is based (all quotes are from Josh Fox, unless otherwise noted):

Misstating the Law

(6:05) "What I didnt know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other environmental and Democratic regulations."

This assertion, every part of it, is false. The oil and natural gas industry is regulated under every single one of these laws under provisions of each that are relevant to its operations. See this fact sheet for a fuller explanation of that.

The process of hydraulic fracturing, to which Fox appears to be making reference here, has never in its 60-year history been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It has, however, been regulated ably and aggressively by the states, which have compiled an impressive record of enforcement and oversight in the many decades in which they have been engaged in the practice.

Far from being "pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney," the Energy Policy Act of 2005 earned the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate (74 "yea" votes), including the top Democrat on the Energy Committee; current Interior secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado; and a former junior senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. In the U.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting the final bill, including the top Democratic members on both the Energy & Commerce and Resources Committees.

(6:24) "But when the 2005 energy bill cleared away all the restrictions, companies began to lease Halliburton technology and to begin the largest and most extensive domestic gas drilling campaign in history now occupying 34 states."

Once again, hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under SDWA not in the 60-year history of the technology, the 36-year history of the law, or the 40-year history of EPA. Given that, its not entirely clear which "restrictions" in the law Mr. Fox believes were "cleared away" by the 2005 energy bill. All the bill sought to do was clarify the existing and established intent of Congress as it related to the scope of SDWA.

Interest in developing clean-burning natural gas resources from Americas shale formations began to manifest itself well before 2005. The first test well in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, for example, was drilled in 2004. In Texas, the first wells in the prolific Barnett Shale formation were spudded in the late 1990s. But even before natural gas from shale was considered a viable business model, energy producers had been relying on hydraulic fracturing for decades to stimulate millions of wells across the country. The technology was first deployed in 1948.

The contention that current energy development activity represents the "largest drilling campaign in history" is also incorrect. According to EIA, more natural gas wells were developed in 1982 than today. And more than two times the number of petroleum wells were drilled back then as well, relative to the numbers we have today. Also, while it may (or may not) be technically true that fracturing activities take place in 34 states, its also true that 99.9 percent of all oil and gas activity is found in only 27 U.S. states (page 9, Ground Water Protection Council report)

(32:34) "The energy task force, and $100 million lobbying effort on behalf of the industry, were significant in the passage of the Halliburton Loophole to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which authorizes oil and gas drillers exclusively to inject known hazardous materials, unchecked, directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies. It passed as part of the Bush administrations Energy Policy Act of 2005."

Not content with simply mischaracterizing the nature of existing law, here Fox attempts to assert that the law actually allows energy producers to inject hazardous chemicals "directly into" underground drinking water. This is a blatant falsehood. Of course, if such an outrageous thing were actually true, one assumes it wouldnt have taken five years and a purveyor of the avant-garde to bring it to light.

The subsurface formations that undergo fracture stimulation reside thousands and thousands of feet below formations that carry potable water. These strata are separated by millions of tons of impermeable rock, and in some cases, more than two miles of it.

Once again, to characterize the bipartisan 2005 energy bill as having a "loophole" for hydraulic fracturing requires one to believe that, prior to 2005, hydraulic fracturing was regulated by EPA under federal law. But that belief is mistaken. And so is the notion that the 2005 act contains a loophole for oil and natural gas. As stated, hydraulic fracturing has been regulated ably and aggressively by the states.

(1:32:34) "Diana DeGette and Maurice Hincheys FRAC Act [is] a piece of legislation thats one paragraph long that simply takes out the exemption for hydraulic fracturing to the Safe Drinking Water Act."

Here Fox is referring to the 2008 iteration of the FRAC Act, not the slightly longer (though equally harmful) 2009 version of the bill. The legislation does not, as its authors suggest, "restore" the Safe Drinking Water Act to the way it was in 2004. It calls for a wholesale re-writing of it.

Heres the critical passage from the FRAC Act: "Section 1421(d)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting: (B) includes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil and gas production activities."

Why would you need to "insert" new language into a 36-year-old statute if all you were looking to do is merely "restore" it?

Misrepresenting the Rules

(1:00:56) "Because of the exemptions, fracking chemicals are considered proprietary The only reason we know anything about the fracking chemicals is because of the work of Theo Colborn by chasing down trucks, combing through material safety data sheets, and collecting samples."

With due respect to eminent environmental activist and former World Wildlife Fund staffer Theo Colborn, no one has ever had to "chas[e] down a truck" to access information on the materials used in the fracturing process.

Thats because theres actually a much easier way to obtain that information: simply navigate to this website hosted by regulators in Pennsylvania, this one from regulators in New York (page 130; it will take a few moments to download), this one for West Virginia, this one maintained by the Ground Water Protection Council and the U.S. Department of Energy (page 63), and this one on the website of Energy In Depth.

(1:03:33) Dr. Colborn: "Once the public hears the story, and theyll say, Why arent we out there monitoring? We cant monitor until we know what theyre using. Theres no way to monitor. You cant."

According to environmental regulators from Josh Foxs home state of Pennsylvania, "Drilling companies must disclose the names of all chemicals to be stored and used at a drilling site These plans contain copies of material safety data sheets for all chemicals This information is on file with DEP and is available to landowners, local governments and emergency responders."

Environmental regulators from Foxs adopted state of New York also testify to having ready access to this information. From the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) information page: "The [state] is assessing the chemical makeup of these additives and will ensure that all necessary safeguards and best practices are followed."

According to the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), "[M]ost additives contained in fracture fluids including sodium chloride, potassium chloride, and diluted acids, present low to very low risks to human health and the environment." GWPC members include state environmental officials who set and enforce regulations on ground water protection and underground fluid injection.

Mischaracterizing the Process

(6:50) "[Hydraulic fracturing] blasts a mix of water and chemicals 8,000 feet into the ground. The fracking itself is like a mini-earthquake. In order to frack, you need some fracking fluid a mix of over 596 chemicals."

As it relates to the composition of fluids commonly used in the fracturing process, greater than 99.5 percent of the mixture is comprised of water and sand. The remaining materials, used to help deliver the water down the wellbore and position the sand in the tiny fractures created in the formation, are typically components found and used around the house. The most prominent of these, a substance known as guar gum, is an emulsifier more commonly found in ice cream.

From the U.S. Dept. of Energy / GWPC report: "Although the hydraulic fracturing industry may have a number of compounds that can be used in a hydraulic fracturing fluid, any single fracturing job would only use a few of the available additives [not 596!]. For example, in [this exhibit], there are 12 additives used, covering the range of possible functions that could be built into a fracturing fluid." (page 62)

In the documentary, Fox graphically depicts the fracturing process as one that results in the absolute obliteration of the shale formation. In reality, the fractures created by the procedure and kept open by the introduction of proppants such as sand are typically less than a millimeter thick.

(50:05) "Each well completion, that is, the initial drilling phase plus the first frack job, requires 1,150 truck trips."

Suggesting that every well completion in America requires the exact same number of truck trips is absurd. As could be guessed, the number of trips required to supply the well site with the needed equipment and personnel will vary (widely) depending on any number of factors.

As it relates to a source for Foxs identification of "1,150 truck trips," none is given although it appears he may have derived those numbers from a back-of-the-envelope calculation inspired by a chart on page 6-142 of this document from NY DEC. As depicted on that page, the transportation of new and used water supplies, to and from the wellsite, account for 85 percent of the trips extrapolated by Fox.

Unrepresented in this chart is the enormous growth in the amount of produced water that is currently being recycled in the Marcellus with industry in Pennsylvania reusing and recycling on average more than 60 percent of its water, according to the Marcellus Shale Coalition.

According to GWPC: "Drilling with compressed air is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to drilling with fluids due to the increased cost savings from both reduction in mud costs and the shortened drilling times as a result of air based drilling." (page 55)

(51:12) "Before the water can be hauled away and disposed of somewhere, it has to be emptied into a pit an earthen pit, or a clay pit, sometimes a lined pit, but a pit where a lot of it can seep right back down into the ground."

The vast majority of energy-producing states 27 in total, including all the ones to which Fox travels for GasLand have explicit laws on the books governing the type of containment structures that must be used for temporarily storing flowback water. A number of producers today choose to store this water in steel tanks, eliminating all risk of that water re-entering the surrounding environment.

GWPC (May 2009) "In 23 states, pits of a certain type or in a particular location must have a natural or artificial liner designed to prevent the downward movement of pit fluids into the subsurface. Twelve states also explicitly either prohibit or restrict the use of pits that intersect the water table." (page 28-29)

GWPC (April 2009): "Water storage pits used to hold water for hydraulic fracturing purposes are typically lined to minimize the loss of water from infiltration. In an urban setting, due to space limitations, steel storage tanks may be used." (page 55)

Flat-Out Making Stuff Up

(53:36) "The Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah gas fields [of Wyoming] are directly in the path of the thousand year old migration corridor of pronghorn antelope, mule deer and sage grouse. And yeah, each of these species is endangered, and has suffered a significant decline of their populations since 2005."

0 for 1: Three species of the pronghorn antelope are considered "endangered," none of which are found anywhere near the Pinedale Anticline. Those are: the Sonoran (Arizona), the Peninsular (Mexico), and the Mexican Pronghorn (also of Mexico). According to the Great Plains Nature Center: "The great slaughter of the late 1800s affected the pronghorns Only about 12,000 remained by 1915. Presently, they number around one million and the greatest numbers of them are in Wyoming and Montana."

0 for 2: Only one species of mule deer is considered "endangered": the Cedros Island mule deer of Mexico (nowhere near Wyoming). The mule deer populations are so significant in Wyoming today that the state has a mule deer hunting season.

0 for 3: The sage grouse does not currently have a place on the endangered species list, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and "robust populations of the bird currently exist across the state" of Wyoming, according to the agency. Interestingly, FWS recently issued a press release identifying wind development as a critical threat the sage grouses habitat.

That said, producers in the area have taken the lead on efforts to lessen their impact and reduce the number of truck trips required to service their well sites. As part of that project, operators have commissioned a series of independent studies examining additional steps that can be taken to safeguard the Anticlines wildlife.

(31:32) "In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate."

No record of the investigation described by Fox exists, so EID reached out to Dr. Dave Bolin, deputy director of Alabamas State Oil & Gas Board and the man who heads up oversight of hydraulic fracturing in that state. In an email, he said he had "no recollection" of such an investigation taking place.

That said, its possible that Fox is referring to EPAs study of the McMillian well in Alabama, which spanned several years in the early- to mid-1990s. In 1989, Alabama regulators conducted four separate water quality tests on the McMillian well. The results indicated no water quality problems existed. In 1990, EPA conducted its own water quality tests, and found nothing.

In a letter sent in 1995, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently, President Obamas top energy and environmental policy advisor) characterized EPAs involvement with the McMillian case in the following way: "Repeated testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the drinking water well which was the subject of this petition [McMillian] failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for drinking water quality, and no constituents exceeding drinking water standards were detected."

For information on what actually did happen in Alabama during this time, and how its relevant to the current conversation about the Safe Drinking Water Act, please download the fact sheet produced last year by the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama.

(1:28:06) "Just a few short months after this interview, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection suffered the worst budget cuts in history, amounting to over 700 staff either being fired or having reduced hours and 25 percent of its total budget cut."

DEP press release, issued January 28, 2010: "Governor Edward G. Rendell announced today that the commonwealth is strengthening its enforcement capabilities. At the Governors direction, the Department of Environmental Protection will begin hiring 68 new personnel who will make sure that drilling companies obey state laws and act responsibly to protect water supplies. DEP also will strengthen oil and gas regulations to improve well construction standards."

Recycling Discredited Points from the Past

Weston Wilson (EPA "whistleblower"): "One can characterize this entire [natural gas] industry as having a hundred year history of purchasing those they contaminate." (33:36)

Mr. Wilson, currently on staff at EPAs Denver office, was not part of the team of scientists and engineers that spent nearly five years studying hydraulic fracturing for EPA. That effort, released in the form of a landmark 2004 study by the agency, found "no evidence" to suggest any relationship between hydraulic fracturing and the contamination of drinking water.

Wilson has a well-documented history of aggressive opposition to responsible resource and mineral development. Over his 35-year career, Mr. Wilson has invoked "whistleblower" status to fight dam construction in Colorado, oil and gas development in Montana, and the mining of gold in Wyoming.

Wilson in his own words: "The American public would be shocked if they knew we make six figures and we basically sit around and do nothing."

Dunkard Creek: Fox includes images of dead fish along a 35-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek in Washington Co., Pa.; attributes that event to natural gas development. (01:23:15)

Foxs attempt to blame the Dunkard Creek incident on natural gas exploration is contradicted by an EPA report issued well before GasLand was released which blamed the fish kill on an algal bloom, which itself was fed by discharges from coal mines.

EPA report: "Given what has been seen in other states and the etiology of this kill, we believe the toxin from this algae bloom led to the kill of fish, mussels, and salamanders on Dunkard Creek. The situation in Dunkard Creek should be considered a chronic exposure since chloride levels were elevated above the criteria for long periods of time." (issued 11/23/09)

Local PA newspaper calls out Fox: "One glaring error in the film is the suggestion that gas drilling led to the September fish kill at Dunkard Creek in Greene County. That was determined to have been caused by a golden algae bloom from mine drainage from a [mine] discharge." (Washington (Pa.) Observer-Reporter, 6/5/10)

Mike Markham: Fox blames flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colo. on natural gas development

But thats not true according to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). "Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin. There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well." (complaint resolved 9/30/08, signed by John Axelson of COGCC)

Context from our friends at ProPublica: "Drinking water with methane, the largest component of natural gas, isnt necessarily harmful. The gas itself isnt toxic the Environmental Protection Agency doesnt even regulate it and it escapes from water quickly, like bubbles in a soda." (Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica, 4/22/09)

Lisa Bracken: Fox blames methane occurrence in West Divide Creek, Colo. on natural gas development.

That assertion has also been debunked by COGCC, which visited the site six separate times over 13 months to confirm its findings: "Stable isotopes from 2007 consistent with 2004 samples indicting gas bubbling in surface water features is of biogenic origin." (July 2009, COGCC presentation by Margaret Ash, environmental protection supervisor)

Email from COGCC supervisor to Bracken: "Lisa: As you know since 2004, the COGCC staff has responded to your concerns about potential gas seepage along West Divide Creek on your property and to date we have not found any indication that the seepage you have observed is related to oil and gas activity." (email from COGCCs Debbie Baldwin to Bracken, 06/30/08)

More from that email: "These samples have been analyzed for a variety of parameters including natural gas compounds (methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexanes), heavier hydrocarbon compounds including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), stable isotopes of methane, bacteria (iron related, sulfate reducing, and slime), major anions and cations, and other field and laboratory tests. To date, BTEX compounds have not been detected in any of the samples."

Calvin Tillman: Fox interviews mayor of DISH, Texas; blames natural gas development, transport for toxins in the air, benzene in blood.

Tillman in the press: "Six months ago, nobody knew that facilities like this would be spewing benzene. Someone could come in here and look at us and say, You know what? Theyve sacrificed you. Youve been sacrificed for the good of the shale." (Scientific American, 3/30/10)

A little more than a month later, Texas Dept. of State Health Services debunks that claim: "Biological test results from a Texas Department of State Health Services investigation in Dish, Texas, indicate that residents exposure to certain contaminants was not greater than that of the general U.S. population." (DSHS report, May 12, 2010)

More from the agency: "DSHS paid particular attention to benzene because of its association with natural gas wells. The only residents who had higher levels of benzene in their blood were smokers. Because cigarette smoke contains benzene, finding it in smokers blood is not unusual."

I think it's time for tough love. So, big hug, big big big hug....and while I'm hugging I'm gonna pinch your arse and whisper in your ear...DON'T BOTHER trying to convince me that fracking is done without negative consequence :o) But one more big hug :)

Igloo, I did not insult you or your family or your friends for that matter. I am sure you have a lovely family.

You question my frustration? If you care to understand my frustration, please re-read your posts and take a moment to consider how your delivery comes across. I've watched you respond in a condescending manner to many a post, and I for one, am not at all interested in being insulted.

For the record:

As I previously posted, I have read and re-read your link to the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York, Inc.'s article "Debunking GasLand The Movie". Yet you accuse me of not reading same because I won't allow you to insert red herrings and the like so as to draw attention away from the serious nature of the industry standard fracking process. I think it a much too important a topic for such silly nonsense. I have read and thanked everyone who presented anything on this subject.

I think that even you may have the ability to put aside your ego and understand my questioning the fact that your personal involvement in this particular industry may influence your view of the fracking process. This is your livelihood and as you have publicly informed anyone who reads your posts, that you feel that you may not be popular given the industry that you are in. I asked you only if my memory was correct in that you have previously posted that you are, in fact, involved in the energy industry.

With regard to Mr. Fox: Mr. Fox has merely brought light to an industry practice that some sane minds may agree needs to be examined more closely. Your tedious comment regarding who actually holds title to the Fox family property in Milonville, Pennsylvania is really unnecessary as it is of no significance to me whether Mr. Fox owns the property or it is owned by Abdullah bin Aziz Al Saud. Who owns the Milonville, Pennsylvania property makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever.

In my world, every person matters. Your statement that "people are not keeling over by the millions after the fracking process is finished". I believe that it does not matter if it is one lone person or many people that are adversely affected. In the event just one person has been adversely affected by the fracking process, a closer examination is in order.

Yes, let's look at hair dye. Great point igloo. Each person decides whether or not they would like their hair to be a color other than that which they come by naturally. I believe that most, if not all who apply hair dye realize that it is a chemical process that produces a different hair color. In the event you dye your own hair, the chemicals contained therein are listed on the outside of the box. In the event you have your hair colored at a salon, you have the right to ask what is in the product which is being applied.

It is not as if you are put in a chair at the salon and given hair color that you did not chose. Having your hair dyed is an example of free will. Free will is not in play for those who have been adversely affected by the fracking process. Unfortunately, they do not have that luxury.

Now, if I went to the salon and my colorist mixed up a concoction of her chosing without my consent or consultation, and decided hey I think Ill add a bit of gasoline to the mix, applied said color concoction without my knowledge or consent, how happy would I be when my hair was rinsed only to see chartreuse colored hair when I looked in the mirror? Or how about no hair, would that be okay too? It would NOT be okay with me, I would NOT be happy about it, and rest assured that I would speak up about it.

I am not solely concerned about what Mr. Fox has to say about the chemicals used in the fracking process. If you read my post, you will see that my concern lies with what the industry representative who testified under oath before Congress, confirmed what chemicals were used in the fracking process. Said representative, under oath, gave a laundry list of the chemicals used in the fracking process, along with an explanation of the part each and every chemical plays in the fracking process.

I will not chastise you for not reading what I wrote.

He certainly did not testify that "which are 99.9% water and sand as well as one or two chemicals, most of which are found in the food chain)" as you previously posted.

"Neh, you won't read that..." I think youre again getting close to stepping over the line of good taste.

I have not insulted you beyond reason. I asked a thoughtful, reasonable and sincere question. I posted my own thoughts on the matter. In the event my thoughts offend you, well I guess I owe you an apology for not holding the same opinion held by you of the industry standard fracking process as testified to before Congress. I assume I should apologize for not taking your word on the matter as well? Call me skeptical. We definitely have a fundamental disagreement as to the facts with regard to what the true industry fracking process entails.

Also, please do not put words into my mouth. I posted that I CAN'T speak to your ethics. I didn't accuse you of being unethical. How would I know whether or not you are ethical, I know you only as igloo from the decorating forum. Nothing more, nothing less.

You see, that is the beauty of being an American. I am entitled to draw my own conclusions from the information I glean from my own research. Yes, I do know where to go to find truthful, unbiased answers to my questions. I do not need guidance on that front, but do appreciate your offer. I do believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions and conclusions, no? I am not trying to convince you that your opinion is wrong. I am merely stating that I strongly disagree with the set of facts as set forth by you.

You previously posted - "There is no need for the industry to make up counter arguments to the story because they have science to prove their case, but no one wants to read that...it's boring and it's much more fun to believe that people like our family live their lives with no ethics, destroying the world just for monetary gain."

If you truly believe your set of "facts" to be the truth, then why in the world have you posted 5 pages of counter arguments, etc., trying to disprove Mr. Fox and the people who have been adversely affected by the industries' standard fracking process, under your words "Read this perhaps????" Why not allow your facts to stand alone?

Lastly, I do not utilize natural gas nor oil in my home. However, I do use gasoline because that is the only available option for my particular car at the moment. Yes, there is also the oil used for the engine as well.

However, we can all see by the disgusting mess that is the Horizon Deep Water Oil Rig, which has been gushing m/billions of barrels of oil into the Gulf for well over 60 days now, that dependence on fossil fuels is something which is very dangerous to us as a nation.

We don't get HBO. A few days ago I caught a bit of a segment on NPR regarding the show. I'm spending time on HT these days with the mess in the Gulf. Not interested in getting into it here too.

When you question my honesty you question my ethics. I take my ethics seriously and any question of those is an insult. I don't need to lie, nor would I for the industry.

I did misunderstand DH on the fracking compound. It's not 99.9 but 99.5. Different wells call for different compounds, typically only one or two are used, but never 596 or 297 or whatever you want to believe. I am sorry for the error though.

I posted the data above because you obviously feel I'd lie (and yet Mr. Fox is apparently above suspicion despite the numerous pieces of data that show otherwise). The people who provided the answers to the real facts are not related to the film or me, they're 3rd party people who've tested and reviewed the information and have provided the answers to the worries you have. But for some reason you're dismissing them. Why? That makes no sense unless you are looking for a boogie man.

The BP disaster is not related to this issue any more than the case you brought up earlier. Blame BP where the blame squarely lies, but you can leave me out of that.

You should do a little exploring on the net about where petroleum products are used. It's not your car that sucks up all the gas and oil you use. Petroleum products are wrapped deeply in our lifes. Unless you live in a cave you use far more than you think. Looking for other alternatives is a good thing, we're involved in that as well, but it's rediculous to dis the industry when you are benefiting from the product.

I'll leave it at that and not visit this again. I don't want to waste anymore time on this type of garbage and I'm sorry you've been conned by this screw bag as well. He's not though :) He'd be loving this. Any good liar loves it when, even in the face of the real facts, someone accepts their lies as reality.

Fox is upfront about why he's doing the film, both at the start of the film and in interviews.

The litany of "problems" with the time stamps that igloo posted is from Energy in Depth's website. They got a .org website, but according to Source Watch:

Energy in Depth (EID) is a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Petroleum Association of America and dozens of additional industry organizations for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by Colorado U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids.

it's rediculous to dis the industry when you are benefiting from the product.

It is in no way ridiculous to investigate and be critical of an industry that supplies us with goods. You seem to be saying that consumers should just consume and not question where goods originate or how they are manufactured. Is this how you shop for food and toys for your family and animals?

We can certainly be horrified by how inescapable and lacking in diversification our energy sources are. We can certainly be horrified by the environmental impact of the practices of the energy companies. We are the clients, after all.

In my opinion, we are witnessing a massive, but natural progression in the works. Throughout history, humans have used practices that were harmful to themselves, animals, or the land due to ignorance. Once the harmful effects of their actions are discovered, there is usually a slow movement away from that practice. We can see evidence of this in so many ways - farming, hunting, healthcare, personal products, use of chemicals...the list literally goes on and on.

We have been talking about the negative effects of fossil fuel mining (natural gas being one of the fossil fuels) and use for about 30 years now (maybe more). At the moment, only the wealthy are able to make the shift. But, at some point, we know fossil fuel supplies will become more expensive because supply will get close to exhaustion. At the same time, alternatives will become more accessible in cost and availability.

Gasland is just another cog in a wheel that is already turning. Fossil fuels are a dead end because the supply is limited and can not be replenished. Renewable energy is the future. There is no way to deny that. We also know that water is quickly becoming a precious commodity. The amount of water being wasted on both ends of hydraulic fracking is a serious problem. It should stop. Immediately.

By the way, check out how much of the world's surface will need to be used for solar panels to keep the lights on. The graphic is surprising...in a good way.

Igloo, have you asked GW to delete that May 6 thread about your rock star neighbor? I've emailed 3 times and posted a thread on Suggestions. They must have all taken extended vacations.

Good thing we don't have a current forum police chief. She'd be banging her head up against the wall with frustration.

I tried unsuccessfully to have a thread hanging at the top of another forum removed. No success. No response fromGW.

Wonder what's going on?