GASLAND - the movie - MUST SEE!! IMPORTANT!

FiveB247x

So what do you have to say in regards to their comments and details. You're saying it's bogus and their biased but have not said specifically why their comments are incorrect other than saying "I'm right, they're not".

ryanevolution wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Yes that does help provide clarity, but the moral of the story is don't take anything or anyone at face value, not a pro-business group or some guy who made a film either. You don't seem to differentiate the two.

ryanevolution wrote:

Thank you Pepe, for providing the Source Check link which CLEARLY shows the motives behind that "debunking" group.

I'm not taking it at face value. I actually watched the movie, did some follow-up research, and made a decision for myself. Why dont you try it.

ryanevolution

http://edendale.typepad.com/weblog/2010/06/the-natural-gas-industry-goes-on-the-attack-against-josh-foxs-gasland.html

The Natural Gas Industry Goes On the Attack Against Josh Fox's GASLAND

Perhaps the biggest documentary splash this past week was made by the television debut of one of the year's best and most important films, Josh Fox's GASLAND. A screening one week ago on HBO, accompanied by a series of television appearances by Fox, brought wide, new attention to the dangers of hydraulic fracturing. And this, in turn, brought out a swift response from natural gas interests.

In light of recent industry push-back against films as diverse as Joe Berlinger's CRUDE and Louie Psihoyos' THE COVE, it's probably no surprise that the natural gas companies and their allies have mounted their defenses so quickly and so strongly. But the vastness and thoroughness of the attack on GASLAND, mounted by seemingly anonymous PR front groups, through comments sections, twitter feeds and direct media contacts, is still surprising.

More to the point, it suggests that Josh Fox has hit a real nerve.

There is probably no greater evidence to the threat GASLAND poses to unfettered natural gas exploration than the widespread, well-timed and sometimes obscenely personal attack that the natural gas industry launched against Josh Fox and his film last weekend. Days before Fox's film was set to premiere, front groups for natural gas interests, led by the misnomered "Energy in Depth" (which touts the safety of hydraulic fracturing on its website and warns of the dangers of new regulations on the industry), sent a press release to media outlets that would supposedly "debunk" the claims in Fox' film.

One major complaint in Energy in Depth's "debunking" focuses on whether the federal government has ever regulated hydraulic fracturing. Fox makes a point that the Bush administration's 2005 energy bill exempted "fracking" from federal regulatory and environmental protection laws. EID says that fracking has never been regulated by the feds. In truth - it's a distinction without a difference, whether fracking has been regulated previously does nothing to gut Fox' argument that the 2005 energy cemented this lack of regulation on the industry.

Writing about the topic in 2009, John Laurent-Tronche of the Fort Worth Business Press, summarizes the state of federal regulation and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. His summary is nearly identical to the one that Fox provides in his film.

"The Safe Drinking Water Act was passed by Congress in 1974 to ensure a safe drinking water supply by regulating what can and cannot be injected into the ground. Previously the EPA was granted permission to regulate hydraulic fracturing. In 2005, however, its reach was cut short. At the behest of then-Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly a CEO of Halliburton Co., which developed hydraulic fracturing in 1949, the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended to exempt hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation through the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which specified that the definition of "underground injection" excludes the injection of fluids or propping agents. (The task force that drafted the fracing legislation was comprised of energy industry executives, according to a Washington Post report. Activists refer to the 2005 act as the "Halliburton loophole.")"

EID also alleges that Fox misrepresented the truth when he says in the film that environmentalist Theo Colborn had to use highly investigative means to determine which chemicals make up the "fracking fluid". EID says that the information is out there for anyone who wants to google it. But in Tronche's 2009 article, an EID spokesperson named Chris Tucker is quoted as saying nearly exactly what Fox says in GASLAND, the quote that EID now says is a misrepresentation.

Fox in GASLAND, as quoted by EID:

"“Because of the exemptions, fracking chemicals are considered proprietary"

EID's Chris Tucker in the 2009 Fort Worth Business Press article:

"State regulators don't know how much of each chemical is being used, however, due to proprietary restrictions, Tucker said."

If EID's distortions and misrepresentations (funny, isn't that what they're accusing Fox of?) aren't enough, they go for a series of smears on Fox personally, making sure to tell you that Fox is an "avant-garde...stage director" whose previous work has been in NYC's "Fringe Festival". That sounds positively French.

And suggesting that EID might not understand the process by which documentary films are seen and distributed - or perhaps intentionally trying to obfuscate on the matter - the group makes a most bizarre claim in its introduction:

"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."

Lifted from prior incarnations of the film? Given a new home in this one? Original reporting? Is EID actually arguing that Fox is somehow stealing from himself in presenting a version of GASLAND on HBO that is basically the same film that premiered at Sundance in January? [In a more recent post, EID points to an unsourced claim regarding a "new and improved" version of the film and to two minor narration changes.]

Strangely - or perhaps not so strangely - EID's strategy of hitting media outlets on the eve of GASLAND's premiere seemed to pay off for them. Fox' appearance on the Daily Show on the night of his HBO premiere had the Comedy Central host bring up EID's charges and offer that ordinary people just don't know who to go to for the truth. In a bit of word usage that he likely didn't intend, Jon Stewart even said that Josh Fox did the "bunking" and now someone else is trying to debunk, which suggested that GASLAND was, quite possibly, rife with suspected inaccuracies.
Even the NY Times' critic Mike Hale fell victim. In citing the industry complaints against the film, Hale claims that it would be difficult for "objective viewers" to "wholly embrace" Fox. Hale calls this maddening and argues that Fox prefers "vivid images" rather than "the more mundane crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s of investigative journalism". Further, Hale goes for sophomoric shorthand and compares Fox to Michael Moore, which is just what the industry is hoping for - Moore being code in some circles (hey, maybe even most) for someone who is a propagandist who plays fast and loose with the truth. It's unclear whether Hale researched the industry's claims before using them to "balance" his review of the film.

And it wasn't just the media doing their part to make sure the industry's claims cast a shadow over their coverage of GASLAND. Google "Gasland" or "fracking" and you get sponsored links by friends of the natural gas industry. An otherwise benign ArtsBeat post by Jeremy Enger in the Times quickly gets three straight comments encouraging people to go to the Energy in Depth website.

Just who is Energy in Depth?

In his 2009 piece, the Fort Worth Business Times' Tronche identified Energy in Depth as "a Washington, D.C.-based industry lobbying group comprised of dozens of organizations, including the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association and the Independent Petroleum Association of America."

Kevin Grandia wrote a piece at the Huffington Post saying that he found Energy in Depth's otherwise anonymous (no contact information to be found) website registered to DC PR firm FD Americas Public Affairs:

"FD's clients include other oil and gas lobby groups with one in particular that stands out, the American Energy Alliance, run by former Republican staffers Eric Creighton, Kevin Kennedy and Laura Henderson. The Energy Alliance ran an "Energy Town Hall" bus tour last summer attacking the Obama administration's Clean Energy and Security legislation."
Meanwhile, Fox and company play a little bit of combination catch-up and offense. A week after the HBO screening, GASLAND has a new website and Fox has posted on his Facebook page that he is hard at work on a lengthy rebuttal to EID's charges while simultaneously encouraging folks to support a moratorium on fracking in the state of New York.

And while the industry attacks, they can't stop people from seeing GASLAND and hearing their neighbors' stories. For every one of the pro-EID comments in the NY Times ArtsBeat piece, there are 4 or 5 that express horror for what they've seen in the film or have experienced personally.

Meanwhile, that "money shot"? The scenes of drinking water on fire? EID claims it's naturally occurring methane.

Nothing to see here, boys, move along now...

ryanevolution

Where you at now?

FiveB247x

Oh shit no you didn't?! You one silly ass mofo! This is a message board dude, relax. Would you like me to find some other article and commentary trying to disprove what your source says and then we can ping pong back and forth - what will this accomplish even if I did?... which is why I didn't. And it's pretty lame to not even answer with your own comments but merely say here, look some other joe schmoe says x,y and z, yet you act as if you're a know it all. Get over yourself man, seriously.

And just so you can wrap your narrow scope around this issue, read this, It's from Common Dreams and I'm sure you wouldn't call them all that biased mostly cause you subscribe to their opinions... http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/24-7

"The bottom-line message is, look at his record with the industry up until now," said Jan Jarrett, who replaced Hanger in 2008 as head of the environmental group Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture).

The wounded Hanger says he is no gas-drilling apologist.

"There are real problems in this industry," he said. "But this movie certainly contributes to more public misunderstanding."

He was one of the few regulators who agreed to be filmed by Fox.

Oh and here's another legitimate source questioning some of the details that you so readily passed off previously. http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/gasland-film-is-full-of-ahem-naturally-occurring-methane-97070864.html

ryanevolution wrote:

Where you at now?

Tenzing N.

This subject is very close to my heart.

It's also much more complicated than what is in the frac fluid although that is a very imprtant aspect of the drilling.

The real issue here really comes down to this:

1. Do the rights of the mineral owners weigh heavier than the rights of surface owners?
2. Or does the rights of a dozen mineral rights owners to access their legal property outweigh the rights of hundreds or thousands of people affected by the process of taking said minerals?
3. Finally, has the technology developed to access natural gas with the fracturing process far outpaced the regulatory processes required to safely control it or the development of best practices in the event of a failure in the devices used to contain the chemicals and gas?

Not to mention- can a small municipality legally require mandates on drilling practices that far exceed those put forth by state or national governing bodies?

Regardless of what is or is not in the fluid these questions are really at the heart of this matter.

puremagic

Cheney and Halliburton at work in 2002 [Info supplied to EPA by Halliburton]

ES-6 What Is in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids?

Fracturing fluids consist primarily of water or inert foam of nitrogen or carbon dioxide.
Other constituents can be added to fluids to improve their performance in optimizing
fracture growth. Components of fracturing fluids are stored and mixed on-site. Figures

This is an excerpt from the 463 pg. study conducted by the EPA 2004 on which was based that there was no significant danger to drinking water or ground water by hydraulic fracturing fluids.

ES-5 and ES-6 show fluids stored in tanks at CBM well locations.

During a hydraulic fracturing job, water and any other additives are pumped from the
storage tanks to a manifold system placed on the production wells where they are mixed
and then injected under high pressure into the coal formation (Figure ES-6). The
hydraulic fracturing in CBM wells may require from 50,000 to 350,000 gallons of
fracturing fluids, and from 75,000 to 320,000 pounds of sand as proppant (Holditch et al.,
1988 and 1989; Jeu et al., 1988; Hinkel et al., 1991; Holditch, 1993; Palmer et al., 1991,
1993a, and 1993b). More typical injection volumes, based on average injection volume
data provided by Halliburton for six basins, indicate a maximum average injection
volume of 150,000 gallons of fracturing fluids per well, with a median average injection
volume of 57,500 gallons per well (Halliburton, Inc., 2003).

Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources June 2004
of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of
Coalbed Methane Reservoirs ES-11

http://www.gwpc.org/e-library/documents ... rvoirs.pdf


http://www.earthworksaction.org/fracfluidslarge.cfm Here is a listing of fracturing fluids that the EPA knew of in 2002,

http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/08- ... acking.pdf Here is what the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania found and the potential health risk 2008.


Here’s Cheney Energy Policy Act
http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf Before you click it, it is 551 pages long about 3mb. Here are some quick reference sections – but the Policy is packed with them.

This is Public Law 109-058, Energy Policy Act of 2005 aka Day Light Savings Bill.

Sec. 1541 covers the Waivers from the acts of God to a claim of hey I didn’t know that could happen. Throughout the Bill there are references to exemptions to previous regulations covering water and energy. Hydraulic fracturing is exempt under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

Section 1811 Coal Bed Methane Study specifically acknowledges hazards to drinking water and ground water aquifers in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota and Utah.

Sec. 1833 through 1835 addressed private owner problems on Federal land. This Bill instructs the Department of Interior to review all policies and regulations regarding private ownership on Federal land, including Native American rights of ownership.

Sec. 1836 gets specific and requires the Dept. of Interior to perform a study on the problems of private owners vs. Federal land in the Powder River Basin matter.


Here’s the latest on the Powder River Basin matter. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1143327920070911

puremagic

http://www.ewg.org/reports/Free-Pass-fo ... Exemptions

Free Pass for Oil and Gas: Environmental Protections Rolled Back as Western Drilling Surges: Wells by Region

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Many of the nearly 270,000 oil and natural gas wells drilled in the West since 1980 have employed hydraulic fracturing, a process that involves the underground injection of tens of thousands to six million gallons of water per well. The water is laced with toxic chemicals and sand or other material known as “proppant.” The fluid creates fractures in underground formations and the proppant holds these fractures open, allowing oil and gas to flow up the drilling pipe (EPA Fracturing Final 2004 ES-11, Schein 2008, Burnett and Vavra 2006). EPA considered hydraulic fracturing as exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act following the act’s passage in 1974 (LEAF v. EPA 1997, EPA Fracturing Final 2004). The act sets standards and requires permits for the underground injection of hazardous substances so that these materials do not endanger Underground Sources of Drinking Water (SDWA 2008).

According to 2005 Congressional testimony by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a group that represents governors from oil and gas producing states, hydraulic fracturing is used in 90 percent of all oil and natural gas wells drilled in the U.S. (IOGCC Carrillo 2005).

Hydraulic fracturing has recently been associated with water contamination and human health problems. Last summer, the federal Bureau of Land Management documented benzene contamination in water wells in Sublette County, Wyoming, the site of one of the nation’s largest natural gas fields. Hydraulic fracturing is common in Sublette County (Lustgarten 2008). It was not clear what caused the contamination, but benzene is injected underground in hydraulic fracturing, and the extraction process also causes naturally occurring deposits of benzene to surface (Hess 1998, EPA Final 2004 4-11). What makes the situation so alarming is that there is no other likely source for the benzene in rural Sublette County other than natural gas operations.

Also last year, a nurse in Durango, Colorado almost died after being exposed to hydraulic fracturing chemicals (Hanel 2008).

In a draft 2002 report, EPA reported that at the point of injection, nine hydraulic fracturing chemicals violated water quality standards (EPA Fracturing Draft 2002). This assertion was edited out before the final report was published. The published report did note that fracturing fluids are likely to remain underground and are “likely to be transported by groundwater supplies” (EPA Fracturing Final 2004).
In a 1997 case involving hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane (CBM) wells, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Safe Drinking Water Act’s underground injection standards applied to hydraulic fracturing. EPA conducted a study and, in a report that was heavily criticized by an internal whistle-blower and others, concluded that “the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into CBM wells poses little or no threat” to drinking water (EPA Fracturing Final 2004 ES-16). The agency suggested that it was up to states with primary authority to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act to set standards for any hydraulic fracturing that might threaten underground sources of drinking water (EPA Fracturing Final 2004 ES-17). In 2005, Congress exempted most hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act but said the act would apply to fracturing with diesel fuel (SDWA Exemption 2005).

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
The nearly 270,000 oil and natural gas wells drilled in the West since 1980 have enjoyed an exemption from the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), passed in 1976 to establish a cradle-to-grave hazardous waste management program (RCRA History). The law sets standards for disclosure and safety in handling hazardous waste, for reducing such waste and for developing non-toxic alternatives (RCRA 2008). In 1988, the EPA and Congress agreed not to apply RCRA to oil and gas wastes, overriding objections from some officials at EPA after the agency had documented 62 cases in which oil and gas wastes had caused damage. Two EPA officials told the Associated Press that the exemption was granted due to industry pressure, a charge that EPA administrators denied (Dixon 1988).

Drilling generates significant volumes of hazardous and toxic waste. Some of the major sources are: hydraulic fracturing fluids in which toxic additives are mixed with large volumes of water; drilling mud, a mixture of clay (bentonite) and water mixed with other toxic additives; and produced water (naturally occurring underground water coming from an oil or gas producing zone that can contain toxic hydrocarbons). The mud is usually stored in a large earthern pit that generally serves as the repository for all the other wastes when the well is drilled and put into production (EPA 2000, OGAP 2005).
These wastes should be stored in lined waste pits but are often dumped on the ground or in unlined pits. Even lined pits can leak, contaminating nearby water. (Epstein and Selber 2002, NMOCD Pit Testing 2007). The New Mexico Oil Conservation Division has identified more than 400 cases statewide of groundwater contamination from oil and gas waste pits (Prukop 2008, Farmington 2008). A 2007 NMOCD study found that rips and tears in pit liners were a common problem. Sampling from 37 pits found 17 substances, including arsenic, benzene, cadmium and mercury, that violated water quality standards (NMOCD Pit Testing 2007).

In June 2008, the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division implemented a rule requiring that waste pits be lined and registered with the state and that companies find alternatives when groundwater is within 50 feet of the surface. The rule set forth detailed standards for managing oil and gas wastes (NM Pit Rule 2008). New Mexico governor Bill Richardson recently directed the NMOCD to modify several provisions of the pit rule in response to complaints from some companies that the provisions were burdensome and might cause them to leave New Mexico. (Brunt 2009).

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT (TRI)
Thousands of the nearly 270,000 wells drilled in the West since 1980 are exempt from the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986. The act requires companies to report the release of significant levels of toxic substances to EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The Oil and Gas Accountability Project, a reform organization, has said that the law would likely apply to benzene, toluene and xylene, chemicals often used in oil and gas drilling (OGAP Exemptions 2008).

A 2008 report by EWG and the Paonia, Colorado-based Endocrine Disruption exchange found that Colorado’s natural gas industry uses at least 36 chemicals listed under the TRI (EWG and TEDX 2008, TRI Chemicals 2008).

Who Princess

Tenzing N. wrote:

This subject is very close to my heart.

It's also much more complicated than what is in the frac fluid although that is a very imprtant aspect of the drilling.

The real issue here really comes down to this:

1. Do the rights of the mineral owners weigh heavier than the rights of surface owners?
2. Or does the rights of a dozen mineral rights owners to access their legal property outweigh the rights of hundreds or thousands of people affected by the process of taking said minerals?
3. Finally, has the technology developed to access natural gas with the fracturing process far outpaced the regulatory processes required to safely control it or the development of best practices in the event of a failure in the devices used to contain the chemicals and gas?

Not to mention- can a small municipality legally require mandates on drilling practices that far exceed those put forth by state or national governing bodies?

Regardless of what is or is not in the fluid these questions are really at the heart of this matter.

Thanks for bringing these up. I agree, the problems aren't as simple as what's involved in fracking. These are all questions that need to be examined.

When drilling begin in my area a few years ago, the industry and local officials were just about unanimous in singing its praises. The energy companies (as they call themselves) said it would be clean, nondisruptive, and safe. Local officials said that everyone would benefit--tax revenue for cities and school districts, royalties for the residents who own their mineral rights.

But problems started very quickly. Heavy trucks going in and out of neighborhoods were noisy, left debris, and damaged residential streets. The initial drilling at a site went on 24 hours a day for 3 weeks on average, and the noise was horrendous. After that stage the compressor unit, while not as loud, still made noise round the clock. Drillers responded to complaints by putting barriers around the units, then eventually agreeing to build more substantial enclosures, but the early compressor units don't have those protections. About 3 years ago an employee was making repairs on a leaking unit and there was an explosion; the employee was killed. Right next to a neighborhood.

There were also a lot of disparities in how people were compensated for their mineral rights. Probably not coincidentally the first wells were drilled in low income areas. The residents typically received much less for their mineral rights than people in other neighborhoods. As people heard more and more about what was happening, neighborhood groups started to band together and hire attorneys to negotiate better and better deals for their mineral rights. This eventually resulted in bidding wars that drove up the fees the companies were paying for the rights. It peaked about 2 years ago, just as the price of natural gas started falling. I think the fees topped out in one neighborhood at $30K per acre (i.e., if your house is on a quarter acre lot, you received a "signing bonus" of $7500). Compare that to the first households who signed, who received flat fees of $150-$200. Those fees have dropped now and the people who held out thinking they would get more seem to be out of luck.

As residents started to complain about the noise from the drilling and the gravel trucks and heavy equipment, the cities began to create ordinances about how close to residences drilling could occur. In the county where I live there are about 30 municipalities, with my city the largest. Each city has its own set of regulations. Here, a well has to be at least 300 ft. from homes, schools, or churches. But in the city right next to mine, they can be closer and I've driven past well sites that are just about in people's backyards. I should add that in my city, drillers can request a waiver and drill closer if approved. It almost always is.

The Barnett Shale covers about 20 counties in north and west Texas. It's a HUGE field that they will be working it a long time (current estimates are 30 years). I feel particularly bad for the people who live in the rural areas where they are drilling. For starters, there are very few regulations over the drilling in those areas and the state hasn't got nearly enough inspectors to enforce them. There have been horror stories about drillers dumping their refuse in creeks or by the side of the road. Many people have reported losing livestock after drilling started on or near their land, like a man who reported that his herd of goats all dropped dead within 30 minutes of drinking water from his well.

I read reviews of Gasland before it aired and the reviews said that yes, it is biased but should still be of interest to people in this area. Although I haven't watched it yet, I don't have a problem with it being biased. I remember learning in film class a bazillion years ago that ALL documentaries are biased, no matter how objective they may appear. The filmmaker chooses what footage to include and what to leave out. As long as I watch it with that perspective, I can deal with that.

Tenzing N.

whoprincess- pm sent

Tenzing N.

Something to think about-
If you wanted to install a wind turbine and a set of solar panels on your home should you be able to do that?

What if your neighbor wanted to do the same? Should he be able to do that as well?

Just keep in mind that regardless of what is or isn't in the fluids there does exist the fundemental right for those who have minerals to access them. The onus is on the leaders of the community to bablance that right against the rights of those who are affected and I can tell you from personal experience that this is an extremely difficult task. I would love to give you the opportunity to put up a wind turbine but how do I address the noise and site pollution this will create for your neighbors?

I just wanted to keep side tracking this... Thank you