Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   10 Gulf oil spill myths debunked, yet to be degunked   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line 112
    More: Followup, John Culberson, Lisa Murkowski, Charles Rangel, tourism industry, Mark Begich, R-TX, D-La, R-AZ  
•       •       •

26381 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2010 at 1:03 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-06-30 01:45:11 PM  

jake3988: Space_poet: That seems to paint the Reps in the pockets of oil more than the Dems.
=========================================

This seems to be the case with everything these days.

Republicans and democrats both regularly do the same shiat (with a few exceptions) but republicans shiat tends to be a little larger in volume and slightly smellier.


That is stupid partisanship right there. Both parties are equally bought off by special interests, they just cater to different special interest groups.
 
2010-06-30 01:54:08 PM  
Slideshows suck and subby is an ginormous asstard. Thanks for wasting 20 seconds of my life.
 
rmz
2010-06-30 01:54:39 PM  

drongozone: It was Barack HUSSEIN Obama's fault.


Well, duh.

1) Barack Obama is black.
2) Oil is black.

QED
 
2010-06-30 01:55:34 PM  

Space_Poet: So, the top 5 in the Senate add up to:
Reps: $3,061,726
Dems: $415,058

and the top 5 in the Congress:
Reps: $366,982
Dems: $132,400

That seems to paint the Reps in the pockets of oil more than the Dems.


This seems like a case of BSAB-SVR.

But it's all bullshiat anyway. Those "oil company donations" aren't from the oil companies, but rather the oil company employees that had to list their company when they donated to a candidate.

As I've said many times, I donated to Obama, I work for a retailer and I had to disclose who I work for when I donated money. Does that mean I want Obama to give special favors to the retail industry? No. So these numbers don't mean a lot.
 
2010-06-30 02:00:38 PM  

Space_Poet: That seems to paint the Reps in the pockets of oil more than the Dems.


You seem to correlate number of dollars contributed to the amount of influence purchased.

Surely you're not suggesting this...
 
2010-06-30 02:01:28 PM  

canyoneer: Yes indeed. Since it was first used in 1947, "wide swathes" of groundwater supplies have been "contaminated" by hydraulic fracturing.

Never mind that it's not true...HUFFPO has declared it to be fact.


I'm sure you'd claim that everything in GASLAND (new window) is a lie.
 
2010-06-30 02:02:24 PM  
All mildly interesting. All should be very evident to even the most casual impartial observer.

My question is: when did Arianna hire Ric away from KABC?
 
2010-06-30 02:03:26 PM  
It is goddamned depressing how much so many Farkers behave exactly - and I mean exactly - like FOX news junkies and Freepers.

You guys keep pretending everything in the world is the fault of Republicans, and that even when "your guys" share some blame it's still "mostly" the fault of Republicans. That's really working a treat, imbeciles, and it has so clearly helped the country.
 
2010-06-30 02:11:47 PM  
#11 slideshows cause significantly more cultural and environmental damage than the BP spill, on a yearly basis
 
2010-06-30 02:14:30 PM  
So what they are saying is that these myths were bunk and now they have been debunked?

www.churchhopping.com
 
2010-06-30 02:15:07 PM  

Space_Poet: "You know, I really don't know why you shill for a corporation that cares nothing about the environment and everyone knows it. Fracking has widely been reported to contaminate groundwater to the point where it can catch on fire. Wyoming, Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado you name it, they have all had groundwater contaminated severely by fracking. Who pays you to troll this site with pro oil positions and deflection, I've been watching you do it for years. Frack"


How dramatic.

Of course, you link to stories that are not substantiated by the facts. One of your links claims that "an estimated 1 million gallons of frack water spewed out of a well," another noted that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has debunked all of the claims made by residents in the Wattenberg Field (Weld County), another that fraccing caused heavy metal contamination (?) in Texas, and another further links to an actual EPA report (new window) from a study in Wyoming that was inconclusive and concluded in its summary that "HPC bacteria, iron related bacteria, and sulfate reducing bacteria were detected in groundwater samples...These may be the cause of foul odor and taste in some cases...Additionally, they may be an indication of groundwater contamination by oil and gas activities or contamination by the water well itself."

Your links prove nothing and have been debunked in these threads before, multiple times.

In short, hydraulic fracturing has been used for 60 years and its potential to contaminate ground water or water wells is vanishingly small, since the fracturing occurs thousands of feet below aquifers, beneath impermeable layers of sedimentary rock, and is further isolated from the overlaying strata by cemented and sealed well bores. The few verified instances of frac fluid aquifer contamination involve faulty cement jobs in wells which were subsequently reworked or abandoned, because such wells experience a loss of pressure and therefore do not produce hydrocarbons. If you could find evidence that hydraulic fracturing has or is contaminating water supplies across "wide swathes" of the country, I'm sure you would, but you can't, because there isn't.

And, I'm sure you lead a 100% petroleum-and-natural-gas-free lifestyle, including using a computer made of woven grass and antelope horn, never consuming any product which has not been transported to your immediate vicinity via horse-drawn wagon, and never using motorized transport.

amiright?
 
2010-06-30 02:17:15 PM  

Lando Lincoln: As I've said many times, I donated to Obama, I work for a retailer and I had to disclose who I work for when I donated money. Does that mean I want Obama to give special favors to the retail industry? No. So these numbers don't mean a lot.


Oh, in the end I agree, I was just expanding on the HuffPo logic here, which there seems to not be much of. There needs to be a clarification of which dollars were from individuals and which were from the corps directly to find any trend.

Falcon Hunter: Space_Poet: That seems to paint the Reps in the pockets of oil more than the Dems.

You seem to correlate number of dollars contributed to the amount of influence purchased.

Surely you're not suggesting this...


Umm, yes? I think money has a lot to do with influence. Money greases the wheels of our government. Is my snark detector broke?
 
2010-06-30 02:18:09 PM  
 
2010-06-30 02:19:02 PM  

Le-sigh. I hate slideshow formats.

FTFA


---cut---
1. Obama Put a Moratorium on Offshore Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

Myth. President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a moratorium on new oil deepwater drilling permits, and shut down 33 exploratory deepwater wells on May 6. (A similar moratorium on new shallow water drilling lifted three weeks later. "Shallow" in this context means up to 499 feet deep.) Both orders, however, were vague and left 3,600 existing offshore oil wells active in Gulf waters. Since the spill, 17 new offshore oil drilling projects have been permitted. Even the six-month deepwater moratorium was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge June 22, leaving it void if not overturned on appeal or reinstated on different legal grounds. (Nevermind that the judge has invested in Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded, Halliburton, which handled the faulty cementing of the well, and about a dozen other companies involved in offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.) And Obama has always been a supporter of offshore oil, though some of his environmentalist supporters seem to have forgotten that; he made good on a campaign promise shortly before the BP oil spill started and proposed opening additional offshore waters to oil and gas exploration - in the Gulf of Mexico, along the Atlantic coast and off Alaska. (Permits to start drilling in those new waters have been suspended temporarily.)

2. Boycotting BP Gas Stations Boycotts BP

Myth. Lady Gaga is among the leading proponents of a BP boycott, as musicians on summer tours shun the stations, along with Public Citizen and tens of thousands of Facebook fans of a boycott. But while the brand may be offensive and permanently tainted, BP disinvested in its U.S. gasoline chain in 2007, leaving independent owners invested most heavily in local stations. They pay BP a licensing fee and may (or may not) be more likely to carry BP gasoline, but the economics of wholesale oil and gas is such that BP, Britain's largest company, is unlikely to suffer much from a retail gas boycott, but BP the local station owner could. Anyway, what's the better alternative? And unfortunately, oil ends up in a lot of products other than gasoline, under a lot of different brands, making it difficult to avoid one company's product.

3. Offshore Oil Could Make the U.S. Energy Independent

Myth. The U.S. imports 57% of the oil we burn, and two-thirds of those imports come from politically unstable or hostile countries. As a nation, we spend more than $700 million a day on imported oil (the figure was more than $1 billion as recently as 2008, when oil prices were higher). There isn't enough oil offshore to offset that imbalance. An analysis by the Energy Information Administration, the most credible government voice on energy issues, predicted that new offshore oil drilling would result in a whopping 3-cent difference in the price of gas by 2030. That's not to say that renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, are ready to fill in and plug the gap either, unfortunately. If you're looking for a better path toward energy independence, conservation is the most lucrative avenue. Three pennies not spent on gas are three pennies earned (and three pennies worth of offshore oil not drilled).

4. The Deepwater Horizon Rig Was Uniquely Vulnerable to Disaster

Myth. The facts keep piling up showing negligence - or at the very least, bad decision-making - by BP, and many of those decisions and conditions may be unique to BP, which has been criticized before this for a culture that put profits far ahead of safety and environmental protection. But disaster preparedness by other oil companies drilling in the Gulf, and oversight by the government, is virtually identical. For instance, other companies' disaster response plans in the Gulf seem to include notes about protecting the walrus and other Arctic creatures that don't live in the Gulf; unfortunately they don't include plans to respond to underwater plumes of oil, failed blowout preventers or other real-world issues. And the Mineral Management Service, the agency in charge of regulating energy exploration on federal lands and in federal waters (yes, you own those) was outed repeatedly by its own inspector general of cavorting with oil companies, failing to inspect rigs, waiving requirements for environmental review and otherwise failing its public service mission in favor of its royalty-collecting mission. The MMS determined in 2009 that an environmental review of the Deepwater Horizon rig wasn't warranted because it would have "minimal or non-existent environmental effects." The story is the same with hundreds of other drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico - including 49 projects (including two BP projects) exempted from environmental review since the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Clearly, the assumption that these rigs are safe is dead wrong.

5. The BP Oil Spill Will Lead to a Strong Senate Energy Bill

Myth. The U.S. Senate has been stalled in its efforts to pass an energy and climate bill to match the one passed months ago by the House. A linchpin in the Kerry-Lieberman bill, which would cap carbon emission and invest in clean energy sources, was the expansion of offshore oil drilling. That, along with investment in nuclear power, the shielding of the coal industry from fully owning up to its pollution and other sweeteners were built into the bill to bring Republicans and reluctant Democrats to the table. The catastrophic oil spill will make an energy bill more likely to pass, but without the offshore oil sweetener, a climate bill is not.

6. Now We Know How Much Oil Is Spilling

Myth. Just how big is the Gulf oil spill? Recently leaked internal BP documents show that engineers have estimated a worst-case spill rate of 100,000 barrels a day. That's two-thirds bigger than the worst-case estimate (60,000 barrels) of independent scientists charged by the government with estimating the spill ... which was nearly three times the worst-case estimate (25,000 barrels) released by the government in June ... which was five times the worst-case estimate (5,000 barrels) released by the government and BP in May ... which was itself five times the estimate (1,000 barrels) released by the government and BP in April. The difference between 1,000 barrels and 100,000 barrels is obvious: It's the difference from being a spill that's a fraction of the size of the Exxon Valdez spill (previously the worst spill in U.S. history, at 11 million gallons) to a spill that's many multiples of that infamous spill.

7. The Gulf of Mexico Is Most at Risk from Offshore Oil Spills

Myth. While the Gulf of Mexico holds all of U.S. offshore oil sites currently, President Obama wants to open the Arctic to offshore oil drilling for the first time. Environmental groups are trying to stop the plan, arguing that not only are ecosystems there fragile - think polar bears, seals and, yes, walruses - but a cleanup in icy waters would be even more difficult than in the Gulf of Mexico, and the icy waters themselves would inhibit the (slow, but natural) breakdown of oil. The Interior Department did halt Shell's plans to start drilling this year, but it's not a permanent ban. As for which is more vulnerable, it's a difficult call; the point is that a spill in either place has the potential to devastate entire regions.

8. There's Nothing Individuals Can Do

Myth. There's always volunteering, donating to those cleaning birds or arguing for good energy policy, or writing to Congress directly. But beyond that, there's federal law. The Clean Water Act empowers citizens to bring suits to stop water pollution and hold polluters accountable. It's hard to argue that BP's oil spill isn't polluting water, and several groups - The Center for Biological Diversity, Gulf Restoration Network, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and Environment America - have filed suit. The potential fine is great, at $4,300 per barrel.

9. On-Shore Drilling is Safer

*Unrelated photograph of strip mining*

Myth. It's hard to compare the risks from different activities, but two forms of oil and gas extraction gaining steam on land are fraught with risk. Natural gas extraction from shale requires hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. "fracking"), a process that injects a chemical stew at high pressure deep underground in order to force natural gas out of the rock. Groundwater becomes contaminated with toxic chemicals, threatening drinking water supplies across a wide swath of country where shale formations exist (like the Marcellus shale through New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia). Another controversial new form of oil extraction comes from so-called "tar sands" like those in Alberta, Canada; extracting oil from tar sands involves open pit mining on a grand scale or heating the land at high temperatures to sort-of melt the oil out of the land. What each of these - deepwater drilling, fracking and tar sands mining - has in common is that they are very difficult, expensive and risky. And that they are made necessary by our appetite for oil; the cheap oil that's easy to get at is being exhausted, leading us to these highly complex, highly controversial and highly risky methods.

10. Republicans are the Politicians Most in the Pocket of Oil Companies

Myth. Republicans may scream "drill, baby, drill" louder, but when it comes to political money being spent to influence government, it's more or less a tie. Key Democrats are among the top recipients of political money from oil companies, as are Republicans. The money flows to those in oil-rich states, to high-profile candidates and those with the most power in Congress (ie, the chairs of key committees). Here's a look at the Friends of Earth tally of opensecrets.org data, showing the biggest recipients of money from BP and other oil companies since 2006:
Senate
John McCain (R-AZ) - $36,649 from BP; $2.43 million total
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) - $16,200 from BP; $329,100 total
Mark Begich (D-AK) - $8,550 from BP; $85,958 total
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) - $8,500 from BP; 223,326 total
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) - $8,500 from BP; 408,400 total
House
John Culberson (R-TX) - $10,200 from BP; 187,350 total
Ron Paul (R-TX) - $7,300 from BP; 134,132 total
Charles Rangel (D-NY) - $6,500 from BP; 40,600 total
Steny Hoyer (D-MD) - $6,000 from BP; 91,800 total
Don Young (R-AK) - $5,500 from BP; $45,500 total

---end cut---
 
2010-06-30 02:34:23 PM  

tdyak: Le-sigh. I hate slideshow formats.


Bwahahahahahahah!

\subtard
 
2010-06-30 02:37:52 PM  
Another controversial new form of oil extraction comes from so-called "tar sands" like those in Alberta, Canada;

New?!?
 
2010-06-30 02:43:20 PM  

MrSteve007: I'm sure you'd claim that everything in GASLAND (new window) is a lie.


THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS!!!

For an avant-garde filmmaker and stage director whose previous work has been recognized by the "Fringe Festival" of New York City, HBO's decision to air the GasLand documentary nationwide later this month represents Josh Fox's first real foray into the mainstream - and, with the potential to reach even a portion of the network's 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.

"I'm 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 didn't 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, it's 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 America's 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, it's 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 administration's 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 wouldn't 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 Hinchey's FRAC Act [is] a piece of legislation that's 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.

· Here's 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.

· That's because there's 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), 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 they'll say, 'Why aren't we out there monitoring'? We can't monitor until we know what they're using. There's no way to monitor. You can't."

· According to environmental regulators from Josh Fox's 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 Fox's 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 Fox's 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 grouse's 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 Anticline's wildlife.

(8:07) "And now they're coming east. They're proposing 50,000 gas wells along a 75-mile stretch of the Delaware River and hundreds of thousands more across New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. From 1972 until now - my whole life - all of this has been protected."

· Not even the most optimistic scenario for future development in the Marcellus Shale in general, or along the Delaware River in particular, comes anywhere close to 50,000 natural gas wells. A recent study by Penn State Univ. projects that by the year 2020, producers will have developed 3,587 shale gas wells. A study conducted for policymakers in the Southern Tier of New York predicted a maximum of 4,000 wells for that region.

· Where Fox comes up with his 50,000 figure is unknown. The protections to the area apparently in place since 1972 to which he refers are also unknown.

(19:27) "One thing was resoundingly clear: If the industry's projections were correct, then this would be the end of the Catskills and the Delaware River Basin as we knew it. And it would mean a massive upheaval and redefinition of all of New York State and Pennsylvania."

· According to the Energy Information Administration, Pennsylvania is already home to 55,631 active natural wells; New York, according to DEC, is home to roughly 14,000. Again, even assuming the most active development scenario, Marcellus wells are expected to account for less than 10 percent of all wells in these two states over the next 10 to 20 years - not exactly the type of dramatic "upheaval" and "redefinition" that Fox suggests in his film.

(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 Alabama's 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, it's possible that Fox is referring to EPA's 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 Obama's top energy and environmental policy advisor) characterized EPA's 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 it's 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 Governor's 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 EPA's 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)

· Fox's 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 that's 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, isn't necessarily harmful. The gas itself isn't toxic -- the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't 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 COGCC's 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? They've sacrificed you. You've 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."

Anything we miss? Guess we'll be seeing you at the movies. Maybe not this one, though.

--

Additional resources available at Energy In Depth:

· Split Estate Debunked: Reel Slanted: Split Estate Movie Long on Anecdote, Hyperbole; Short on Facts

· PSU Study: An Emerging Giant: Prospects and Economic Impacts of Developing the Marcellus Shale

What They're Saying: Hydraulic Fracturing, American Shale Gas Creating "Boom in Blue-Collar Jobs"
Issue Alert: When Gummy Bears Attack
Graphic: What's In Frac Fluids?
Browner Memo: Letter of Support for Hydraulic Fracturing from Carol Browner, Fmr. EPA Administrator
EPA Report on HF: "No credible evidence" that hydraulic fracturing endangers groundwater


http://energyindepth.org
 
2010-06-30 02:52:32 PM  

rhino33: MrSteve007: I'm sure you'd claim that everything in GASLAND (new window) is a lie.



THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS!!!



For an avant-garde filmmaker and stage director whose previous work has been recognized by the "Fringe Festival" of New York City, HBO's decision to air the GasLand documentary nationwide later this month represents Josh Fox's first real foray into the mainstream - and, with the potential to reach even a portion of the network's 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.



"I'm 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 didn't 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, it's 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 America's 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 consid ...


Skail: Taking issue with point 10, here: Myth. Republicans may scream "drill, baby, drill" louder, but when it comes to political money being spent to influence government, it's more or less a tie.

John McCain (R-AZ) - $36,649 from BP; $2.43 million total
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) - $16,200 from BP; $329,100 total
Mark Begich (D-AK) - $8,550 from BP; $85,958 total
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) - $8,500 from BP; 223,326 total
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) - $8,500 from BP; 408,400 total

So, even omitting John McCain's huge advantage, we see that the two top Dems received ~415,000 total. The two top Repubs (minus McCain) received ~$630. Including McCain's total and removing Murkowski's paltry amount brings Republicans to a whopping $3.08million. Advantage: Republicans

On to Congress:

John Culberson (R-TX) - $10,200 from BP; 187,350 total
Ron Paul (R-TX) - $7,300 from BP; 134,132 total
Charles Rangel (D-NY) - $6,500 from BP; 40,600 total
Steny Hoyer (D-MD) - $6,000 from BP; 91,800 total
Don Young (R-AK) - $5,500 from BP; $45,500 total

Removing The lowest Repub so I can just compare the top two of each causes me to omit Young. So, the top two Repubs brought in ~320,000. The top two Dems brought in ~130,000. Advantage: Republicans.

I don't see how the authors could write this with a straight face. Their own freaking numbers, published right there, prove them wrong.


So...which natural gas company do you work for?
 
2010-06-30 02:53:30 PM  

rhino33: THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS!!!


Wow, who would have guessed that Energyindepth.org, an organization created last year by the American Petroleum Institute, the Petroleum Association of America, specifically to fight legislation of fracking - would be against this film.
 
2010-06-30 02:56:40 PM  

MrSteve007: Wow, who would have guessed that Energyindepth.org, an organization created last year by the American Petroleum Institute, the Petroleum Association of America, specifically to fight legislation of fracking - would be against this film.




considering that they actually put forth fact for their argument instead of sensationalizing and twisting things like the moron who shiat out Gasland, i would tend to lean in their direction.
 
2010-06-30 02:58:06 PM  
Farking fracking. How does it work?
 
2010-06-30 02:59:18 PM  

ihatedumbpeople: So...which natural gas company do you work for?


none, but i do work in the industry and i'm sick of morons who have no clue what their talking about steer the sheep in the US into thinking that things like Gasland speak truth.

i'm all for getting into alternative energy, BTW
 
2010-06-30 02:59:25 PM  
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/bp-gulf-oil-spill-myths-0 622

cause slideshows suck. why wasn't this the link submitted?
 
2010-06-30 03:00:26 PM  

Diogenes: Farking fracking. How does it work?


are you just shooting out a meme here, or are you genuinely curious?
 
2010-06-30 03:00:57 PM  

rhino33: Diogenes: Farking fracking. How does it work?

are you just shooting out a meme here, or are you genuinely curious?


Meme, man.
 
2010-06-30 03:02:27 PM  

MrSteve007: "Wow, who would have guessed that Energyindepth.org, an organization created last year by the American Petroleum Institute, the Petroleum Association of America, specifically to fight legislation of fracking - would be against this film."


Wow, who would have guessed that verifiable facts are not to be believed. Much better to believe the hysterical claims of a propagandist.

Of course, all of this activity became a matter of critical concern once it "started coming East." Easterners are very concerned about energy production when it starts to happen in their backyard. As long as it's all "out West," it doesn't seem to be any problem at all. Easterners are perfectly happy to consume astronomical amounts of natural gas, but if it is to be produced in their states, they shoot blue sh*t all over the place. Well, boo-frickety-hoo, Eastern guys. Welcome to the party.
 
2010-06-30 03:07:18 PM  

LordStarscream: While the numbers they posted do pretty blatantly state that Republicans take more money from Big Oil (including the Republitard my state is unfortunately saddled with, Turtleman McConnell), that's still no pocket change the Democrats are taking either. The Republicans have just always been more blatant with their corporate whoring, that's all ... helps appeal to "pro-business" righties I guess.


Depends on the business. The Dems are in bed with Hollywood.
 
2010-06-30 03:14:45 PM  

rhino33: ihatedumbpeople: So...which natural gas company do you work for?

none, but i do work in the industry and i'm sick of morons who have no clue what their talking about steer the sheep in the US into thinking that things like Gasland speak truth.

i'm all for getting into alternative energy, BTW


Ding ding ding!!
 
2010-06-30 03:17:09 PM  

ihatedumbpeople: Ding ding ding!!



what exactly are you ding ding dinging here? the fact that i posted true facts in defense of a sensationalist lying movie?
 
2010-06-30 03:18:11 PM  

canyoneer: Of course, all of this activity became a matter of critical concern once it "started coming East." Easterners are very concerned about energy production when it starts to happen in their backyard. As long as it's all "out West," it doesn't seem to be any problem at all. Easterners are perfectly happy to consume astronomical amounts of natural gas, but if it is to be produced in their states, they shoot blue sh*t all over the place. Well, boo-frickety-hoo, Eastern guys. Welcome to the party.


You know why we do messy things in the west? Because no one lives there. Large chunks of the west still categorize as "frontier."
 
2010-06-30 03:24:57 PM  

This text is now purple: canyoneer: Of course, all of this activity became a matter of critical concern once it "started coming East." Easterners are very concerned about energy production when it starts to happen in their backyard. As long as it's all "out West," it doesn't seem to be any problem at all. Easterners are perfectly happy to consume astronomical amounts of natural gas, but if it is to be produced in their states, they shoot blue sh*t all over the place. Well, boo-frickety-hoo, Eastern guys. Welcome to the party.

You know why we do messy things in the west? Because no one lives there. Large chunks of the west still categorize as "frontier."



I live in New York City and take the subway. On the whole, exponentially more friendly to the environment. You're welcome, Canyoneer.
 
2010-06-30 03:26:17 PM  

This text is now purple: "You know why we do messy things in the west? Because no one lives there. Large chunks of the west still categorize as 'frontier.'"


Do you get your stupid pills by prescription or over-the-counter? Must be a prescription.
 
2010-06-30 03:46:37 PM  

downtownkid: "I live in New York City and take the subway. On the whole, exponentially more friendly to the environment. You're welcome, Canyoneer."


A common misconception.

Consider the immense pressure put on the environment. Researchers Bill Rees and Mathis Wackernagel have developed the ecological footprint concept-the area of land needed to provide the necessary resources and absorb the wastes generated by a community-to highlight the impact of cities on the environment. London, UK serves as a good example: the ecological footprint of that city is 120 times the area of the city itself. They estimate that a typical North American city with a population of 650,000 would require 30,000 square kilometres of land-an area roughly the size of Vancouver Island, Canada-to meet domestic needs alone without even including the environmental demands of industry. In comparison, a similar size city in India would require 2,800 square kilometres. (new window)

Until recently, the science of ecology was traditionally aimed at studying and protecting the world's more pristine wildernesses. Today, with more than half of humanity living in urban areas, cities such as New York - given their residents' lifestyles and consumption patterns - are affecting not only regional biodiversity and watersheds, but the planet's most remote environments and resources. (new window)

Of course, you'll find those who evaluate the carbon footprint of city-dwellers and declare it to be lower, but they don't factor in the transportation of all the consumables and the rate of consumption among the on-average more affluent, small urban households.

Indirect impacts of consumption outweigh direct household use of energy, water, and land...Affluent areas have higher environmental impacts...Inner cities are consumption hotspots...resource-waste is a feature of affluent lifestyles, which are more concentrated in the inner city. (new window)
 
2010-06-30 04:02:50 PM  

rhino33: ihatedumbpeople: Ding ding ding!!


what exactly are you ding ding dinging here? the fact that i posted true facts in defense of a sensationalist lying movie?


How are your "facts", "facts" posted by people with a direct relation to the very industry criticized in the movie, any more factual that what was shown in the movie? You telling me those people were imagining their tap water lighting on fire?
 
2010-06-30 04:04:06 PM  

ihatedumbpeople: "How are your 'facts,' 'facts' posted by people with a direct relation to the very industry criticized in the movie, any more factual that what was shown in the movie?"


Check them for yourself.
 
2010-06-30 04:05:12 PM  

canyoneer: downtownkid: "I live in New York City and take the subway. On the whole, exponentially more friendly to the environment. You're welcome, Canyoneer."

A common misconception.

Consider the immense pressure put on the environment. Researchers Bill Rees and Mathis Wackernagel have developed the ecological footprint concept-the area of land needed to provide the necessary resources and absorb the wastes generated by a community-to highlight the impact of cities on the environment. London, UK serves as a good example: the ecological footprint of that city is 120 times the area of the city itself. They estimate that a typical North American city with a population of 650,000 would require 30,000 square kilometres of land-an area roughly the size of Vancouver Island, Canada-to meet domestic needs alone without even including the environmental demands of industry. In comparison, a similar size city in India would require 2,800 square kilometres. (new window)

Until recently, the science of ecology was traditionally aimed at studying and protecting the world's more pristine wildernesses. Today, with more than half of humanity living in urban areas, cities such as New York - given their residents' lifestyles and consumption patterns - are affecting not only regional biodiversity and watersheds, but the planet's most remote environments and resources. (new window)

Of course, you'll find those who evaluate the carbon footprint of city-dwellers and declare it to be lower, but they don't factor in the transportation of all the consumables and the rate of consumption among the on-average more affluent, small urban households.

Indirect impacts of consumption outweigh direct household use of energy, water, and land...Affluent areas have higher environmental impacts...Inner cities are consumption hotspots...resource-waste is a feature of affluent lifestyles, which are more concentrated in the inner city. (new window)



You are comparing apples and doughnuts.

The first link compares first and third world cities, so unless you live in Calcutta I fail to see the relevance.

The second link you posted was actually quite helpful. It indicates that my carbon footprint is 43.85, whereas the average Americans is 91.43.

So I repeat: you're welcome.
 
2010-06-30 04:06:20 PM  

ihatedumbpeople: How are your "facts", "facts" posted by people with a direct relation to the very industry criticized in the movie, any more factual that what was shown in the movie? You telling me those people were imagining their tap water lighting on fire?



no, i'm saying that the gases coming through their watering system were from natural sources, as the studies and case law i posted show. it was not because the big, bad oil industry pumped a "stew" of chemicals into the ground 10,000 feet below all the water reservoirs as the movie would lead you to believe.
 
2010-06-30 04:13:58 PM  

Nightsweat: 11. Crude oil is an excellent defoliant, especially when combined with sea salt. BP is giving the wildlife a nice facial scrub.


www.ihatebillboards.com
 
2010-06-30 04:22:28 PM  

canyoneer: Yes indeed. Since it was first used in 1947, "wide swathes" of groundwater supplies have been "contaminated" by hydraulic fracturing.

Never mind that it's not true...HUFFPO has declared it to be fact.


If you're going to make crap up, at least make up crap that can't be debunked by an easy google search. Link.
 
2010-06-30 04:23:45 PM  

downtownkid: "You are comparing apples and doughnuts. The first link compares first and third world cities, so unless you live in Calcutta I fail to see the relevance. The second link you posted was actually quite helpful. It indicates that my carbon footprint is 43.85, whereas the average Americans is 91.43. So I repeat: you're welcome."


Unfortunately, carbon footprint is not the whole story, as you'd know if you read the research behind the third link. On average, urban dwellers consume more because they are - on average - more affluent. This fact more than makes up for the carbon footprint number you quote, and the carbon footprint number you quote is excludes the transportation of your consumables into the city and the transportation of your garbage back out (for example, garbage from New York City is transported as far as Virginia and Ohio for disposal...perhaps farther...many many tons of it per day.

The worst offender for shipping trash to Ohio is New York. In 2008, it sent 1.1 million tons to Ohio, or 31.9 percent of the waste coming into the state. (new window)

Understanding NYC's Food Supply (new window)

And this doesn't even cover all the other goods schlepped into the city each year. It runs into the hundreds of millions of tons.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but simply because you ride the subway and live in a shoe box does not make you greener than the rest of the country. As noted in the 3rd link, urban areas are consumption hotspots aggravated by the transportation of all the consumables. But you'll cherry-pick the evidence and ignore inconvenient facts to support your position, I'm sure.
 
2010-06-30 04:26:44 PM  

rhino33: ihatedumbpeople: How are your "facts", "facts" posted by people with a direct relation to the very industry criticized in the movie, any more factual that what was shown in the movie? You telling me those people were imagining their tap water lighting on fire?


no, i'm saying that the gases coming through their watering system were from natural sources, as the studies and case law i posted show. it was not because the big, bad oil industry pumped a "stew" of chemicals into the ground 10,000 feet below all the water reservoirs as the movie would lead you to believe.


So...it was natural then? and it just happened to occur naturally after the fracking took place?
 
2010-06-30 04:32:32 PM  

canyoneer: downtownkid: "You are comparing apples and doughnuts. The first link compares first and third world cities, so unless you live in Calcutta I fail to see the relevance. The second link you posted was actually quite helpful. It indicates that my carbon footprint is 43.85, whereas the average Americans is 91.43. So I repeat: you're welcome."

Unfortunately, carbon footprint is not the whole story, as you'd know if you read the research behind the third link. On average, urban dwellers consume more because they are - on average - more affluent. This fact more than makes up for the carbon footprint number you quote, and the carbon footprint number you quote is excludes the transportation of your consumables into the city and the transportation of your garbage back out (for example, garbage from New York City is transported as far as Virginia and Ohio for disposal...perhaps farther...many many tons of it per day.

The worst offender for shipping trash to Ohio is New York. In 2008, it sent 1.1 million tons to Ohio, or 31.9 percent of the waste coming into the state. (new window)

Understanding NYC's Food Supply (new window)

And this doesn't even cover all the other goods schlepped into the city each year. It runs into the hundreds of millions of tons.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but simply because you ride the subway and live in a shoe box does not make you greener than the rest of the country. As noted in the 3rd link, urban areas are consumption hotspots aggravated by the transportation of all the consumables. But you'll cherry-pick the evidence and ignore inconvenient facts to support your position, I'm sure.



Cherrypicking? Like taking the results of a somewhat detailed quiz (that you provided) and tossing them out because, hey, people in NYC are often more affluent? That kind of cherrypicking?

Got a little news for you: those goods that need to be delivered to NYC? Yeah, they need to be delivered anywhere else as well. That garbage that NYC residents create? Yeah, other people create garbage as well. My garbage may travel a little farther, but that in no way shape or form ameliorates the energy savings from the tens of thousands of miles you drive every year that I don't. Or the savings from living in an apartment over a house.

A third time: you're welcome.
 
2010-06-30 04:34:32 PM  
If people didn't believe the last ten debunkings of these claims, why would you think they'd believe something that the Huffington Puff published?
 
2010-06-30 04:42:13 PM  

ihatedumbpeople: So...it was natural then? and it just happened to occur naturally after the fracking took place?



short answer yes. there are frac treatments going on all the time in those areas. the methane getting into the water system was from other sources. you simply can't frac rock that is that far away. it's impossible via rock stress dynamics.
 
2010-06-30 04:46:49 PM  

This text is now purple:
Depends on the business. The Dems are in bed with Hollywood.


And just how much has "Hollywood" farked up the environment, screwed people out of their retirement, pensions, saving and investments, shiat on the housing market and trashed the economy, and generally messed things up like the corporations (wall street and the oil companies especially) that the republicans suck cock for have?

See, I have no beef with "Hollywood", cause they haven't tried to f*ck me and my planet... except when I pay $9 to see a bad movie. They're not trying to be evil for profit.
 
2010-06-30 04:55:51 PM  

rewind2846: See, I have no beef with "Hollywood", cause they haven't tried to f*ck me and my planet... except when I pay $9 to see a bad movie. They're not trying to be evil for profit.


valid enough point, but i do ask that you question things you hear from hollywood, as they like to twist things and sensationalize.
 
2010-06-30 05:10:05 PM  

rhino33: rewind2846: See, I have no beef with "Hollywood", cause they haven't tried to f*ck me and my planet... except when I pay $9 to see a bad movie. They're not trying to be evil for profit.

valid enough point, but i do ask that you question things you hear from hollywood, as they like to twist things and sensationalize.


I really don't five a rat's ass about what "Hollywood" says, because when the chairman of Morgan Stanley oe Smith Barney or the NYSE says something, people can lose their jobs, homes and more. Those who rail against the mythical "Hollywood monster" seek somehow to use the specter of L.A. as Sodom and Gomorrah in some sort of culture war where the eeevil west coast libruls are tearing down all that AmericaTM stands for. They need that boogeyman to provide a counterpoint to their rhetoric, giving it more credibility in the minds of their listeners.

As a result, even though I take all documentaries with several grains of salt (did graphics for two), I would still take their presentation over some corporate shill. Documentaries are not created to be impartial, they are created to prove a point, and as long as they do so with verifiable facts, I have no issue with that. Documentaries take a stand... that is how the form is designed to work.

Yes, corporations have engendered THAT MUCH disbelief, distrust and outright hatred amongst the populace, BP being the latest and most egregious example. Corporations now have all the power and rights of human beings in this country, and none of the soul or conscience. This is a recipe for disaster.
 
2010-06-30 05:16:41 PM  

rewind2846: As a result, even though I take all documentaries with several grains of salt (did graphics for two), I would still take their presentation over some corporate shill. Documentaries are not created to be impartial, they are created to prove a point, and as long as they do so with verifiable facts, I have no issue with that. Documentaries take a stand... that is how the form is designed to work.

Yes, corporations have engendered THAT MUCH disbelief, distrust and outright hatred amongst the populace, BP being the latest and most egregious example. Corporations now have all the power and rights of human beings in this country, and none of the soul or conscience. This is a recipe for disaster.



fair enough, and i agree for the most part, but the key word you use is "verifiable facts" which this particular documentary conveniently left out in many cases.
 
2010-06-30 05:33:23 PM  

rhino33: fair enough, and i agree for the most part, but the key word you use is "verifiable facts" which this particular documentary conveniently left out in many cases.


That's what I'm trying to tell you... even if the facts in the documentary are only 90% verifiable, corporations have screwed things up so badly over the last 100 or so years that they're not trusted even if they're 100% telling the truth... that is, when their lawyers LET them tell the truth.

From the beginnings of the industrial revolution through the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to the military industrial complex of the 50s and 60s to the energy and banking conglomerates of today, corporations have done some really really bad sh*t, usually without mercy, fear of retribution or conscience. This has not engendered many "warm and fuzzies" about their public perception.

That's what needs to be worked on. Grousing about a misplaced word or a percentage is not going to help that public face.
 
2010-06-30 05:43:17 PM  

rhino33: fair enough, and i agree for the most part, but the key word you use is "verifiable facts" which this particular documentary conveniently left out in many cases.


What I find disappointing with your 'fact check' copy/pasta, is that they don't really debunk the claims, they just skirt around it by talking about a bunch of other things. Example:

(6:05) "What I didn't 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 act originally was going to have fracking more closely monitored by the EPA, but during rewriting of the bill, that was yanked out by lobbying of the industry to their Representatives. Most specifically in section 322 of the 2005 Energy Act:

"Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:

''(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.-The term 'underground
injection'-
''(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by
well injection; and
''(B) excludes-
''(i) the underground injection of natural gas for
purposes of storage; and
''(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping
agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic
fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal
production activities.''.


So how exactly was fracturing not specifically excluded from the safe drinking act in the 2005 Energy bill?
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report