From “Not Evil, Just Wrong”: Gasland director hides full facts
Written by Phelim McAleer
Josh Fox has made a documentary that makes some pretty alarming claims about gas drilling across the US. But as is often the case when these claims are examined they do not stand up to scrutiny.
Fox’ documentary Gasland, claims that fracking, a way of drilling for natural gas, has polluted water and endangered lives. One of the most alarming scenes is when he lights water that residents claim has been polluted by fracking. It is dramatic and at first glance seems like a slam dunk. I mean they can light their water – it is polluted and there is gas drilling nearby. It must be responsible.
But then a little digging reveals a few inconvenient facts. A 1976 study by the Colorado Division of Water found that this area was plagued with gas in the water problems back then. And it was naturally occurring.
As the report stated there was “troublesome amounts of methane” in the water decades before fracking began. It seems that in geographical areas gas has always been in the water.
But Josh Fox knew this and chose not to put it in Gasland.
I asked him about this omission at a recent screening at Northwestern University in Chicago.
He said he had not included these facts that questioned his alarmism because “they were not relevant.” He also dropped the bombshell that I had not been aware of that there were media reports of people lighting their water as far back as 1936. Again this was not included in Gasland because it was not relevant.
Perhaps Josh you should include all the evidence and let people figure out what is relevant and what is not.
==================================================================
Note from Anthony: The Gasland director apparently didn’t like this video being used to criticize him (which falls under fair use) and he has pulled it from YouTube claiming a copyright violation. Fortunately, there are other options besides YouTube to show Phelim McAleer’s video:
And as way of verification of the Gasland’s claim of fracking causing methane in groundwater was based on a fabricated claim or not, I went looking for the 1976 report that McAleer cited. I didn’t find it, but I did find another report from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) which was equally damning:
Source: http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/03B5B46B-16D1-11D7-8645000102C1865D
Additionally, on May 13th, the New York Times reported:
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” got a clean bill of health this week in the first scientific look at the safety of the oil and production practice.
So in light of all this, perhaps this description of Gasland’s director Josh Fox’ situation would be apt:
Liar, liar, tap water on fire!
Lest anyone think that natural gas right at the surface is a problem unique to the United States, I offer this video of the “Door to Hell” in Turkmenistan.
Also, back in 2009, before the green movement went fracking crazy, Treehugger reported this story about methane in a lake that could be ignited in a matter of fact sort of way.
Why Yes, Methane Bubbling Up From a Frozen Lake Can Be Lit on Fire
Here’s the video:
No mention of fracking or drilling nearby.
Even research scientists get a kick out of naturally occurring biogenic methane:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Big thanks to Phelim for exposing the liar.
Mark Wagner says:
June 5, 2011 at 7:54 am
Mark,
Thanks for the explanation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Others,
About the only tests of well water in the area* (very rural) where I live are done by sales reps for household water systems (think Culligan) and may include minerals, iron, pH, and sediment. [*Wash. State; east of the Cascades] The general rule is that if it ain’t broke don’t mess with it.
lol….of course I had to type ‘fracturfing’…
fracking/fraccing
Fraccing, frac, fracced do not appear in Webster’s online (or anywhere that I can find).
Webster’s, Dallas Morning News, Newsweek, New York Times all spell it with a “k.”
Get over it.
By providing a path of least resistance, shouldn’t drilling and fracking generally reduce this problem, with a few unique and probably temporary exceptions?
Oh my .. what may be the results of ‘adequate sealing’?
Rising methane (partial) pressure in the old shaft?
And leaks elsewhere?
Wouldn’t an otherwise thoughtful solution be to ventilate the mine shaft? (Or, work to recover the methane?)
.
In Italy all water wells are tested at no cost 2 times a year by the local authority and rated drinkable or not. All open wells are rated non drinkable even if they are because of the possibility of contaminants entering the well,
How do you like that? Huh! Up there in Alberta they can’t spell FRACKING.
Perhaps we should rename it HUFing, as in Hydraulic Underground Fracturing.
Phhht. Get over yourself. I know, you’re the self appointed ‘king of the patch’ apparently.
Happy ‘drilling’!
‘Gasland’ sounds a lot like a Michael Moore production.
— Ed
Down in the Everglades we have “swamp gas” — methane, that gets ignited by lightening, and drives forest fire fighters nuts. Been doing this for the 40 years I’ve been here.
When do you think the lefties will take blame for killing tens of millions with malaria in Africa with their DDT hoax? Even WHO after 35 years plus of trying could find nothing that DDT did except kill mosquitoes.
Roy Jones says:
June 5, 2011 at 1:02 am
In the UK the press focus is on fracking causing earthquakes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-earthquake-tremors-gas-drilling
Perhaps you’d like to give us the details of the catastrophic danger than can result from a magnitude 1.5 (or 2.3) earthquake of the sort that occured in Lancashire in the UK. Then we can pass on a dire warning to the Icelanders who’ve had 64 in the last 48 hours. Eighteen of these were between magnitude 1 and 3. One was magnitude 3.1.
http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/#view=map
Why don’t you apply the same level of scepticism to fracking as to climate change then Mr Watts?
Double standards it seems. Lets not forget, it’s not just gas land that presents concerns on fracking it is also US and the UK academics that have reservations. I guess there just more crack pot conspirators to be struck of ideologically by you and your chums.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.abstract
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55017665/The-Tyndall-Report-on-Fracking
Sam says:
“Why don’t you apply the same level of scepticism to fracking as to climate change then Mr Watts?”
Maybe because fracking has been done for many decades, and there is a wealth of empirical knowledge and experience supporting it…
…unlike AGW, which is model-based, with no evidence of global harm from CO2 emissions. See the difference? One is based on real world experience, while the other is based on evidence-free conjecture.
Perhaps you’d like to give us the details of the catastrophic danger than can result from a magnitude 1.5 (or 2.3) earthquake of the sort that occured in Lancashire in the UK. Then we can pass on a dire warning to the Icelanders who’ve had 64 in the last 48 hours. Eighteen of these were between magnitude 1 and 3. One was magnitude 3.1.
This made me laugh. Living in New Zealand we do not call a magnitude 3 an “earthquake”. Trucks rumbling past cause more shaking than that. (Literally: most people don’t even feel a magnitude below 3.0 let alone have it cause damage.)
In any case, I remain unconvinced that inducing small earthquakes is a bad thing. It’s a hell of a lot better than letting things build up to a big one, recalling that tectonic movements are the real cause – no drilling in the world will actually make one occur that was not ready to go anyway.
Of course the Gasland man lied. These type of stories only exist because of lying.
Ed Dahlgren says:
June 5, 2011 at 3:01 pm
‘Gasland’ sounds a lot like a Michael Moore production.
– Ed
Michael Moore has become very, very rich through his ‘documentaries’. It looks like Mr. Gasland wants a piece of the action!
When I first started doing mineral exploration geochemistry, I was astounded at the public ignorance of what is found beneath the surface. Many were so affected by Jules Verne type stories that they imagined underground caverns, rivers, vegetation, even civilizations. The simple common model of an A, B, C soil horizon system resulting mainly from the effect of weather on hard rock below was unknown to the majority of people I spoke to. I sincerely hope that people are now educated better about soil profiles, their effects on agriculture and the natural environment and their gas content. Do I read into comments above that some references are made to people who ought understand soil profiles and water tables and so on, but do not?
Rod Everson;
If you’re going to speculate in a comment, best that you say that you’re speculating (guessing) rather than sound as if you know what you’re talking about. Here on WUWT, I’ve found that the speculators/guessers, as well as alarmists, are usually called out quite effectively by people who actually know what they’re talking about because of direct experience.>>>>
Well where I grew up well water sampling every few years was something that just got done. You can get a list of accredited labs off the Health Canada web site. Newer wells are subject to newer standards and the older ones exempt, but buy a property and the financial institutions will more than likely require well water testing before granting a mortgage. Further, Colorado has stringent water quality testing requirements for public water systems:
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/100301primarydrinkingwaternew.pdf
And these are water systems that draw from the same acquifer base that private wells in the area draw from. There are also a considerable number of businesses listed in the area that specialize in testing and servicing of private wells. My point was that there ought to be records available from both public and private sources that could be used to understand the types and levels of contaminants before and after fracking in the area became common.
If you want to nit pick my assumption that mandatory well water testing is more common than it is, go right ahead. the point of the thread, and the point of my comments, is that there ought to be a variety of records that could yield information of value in either supporting or falsifying the claim in the first place.
As for your assumption that you live in a highly regulated state that doesn’t have mandatory testing requirements and that somehow suggests that other jurisdictions don’t either… well congrats on making a broad determination on a sample size of ONE.
SlimmerPickens says: What is new, apparently, is the chemical mix now used to improve the result. It is not the harmless salt water of the past, but a toxic brew designed to create higher pressures and reduced shear resistance. In the event of contamination, the health risk is higher due to the efficacy of the process, which increases the area of contamination, and the higher toxicity of the materials used.
…Again, people should quit passing on speculation as to what they think they know and only put what they know on this Blog. SlimmerPickens is total wrong about the toxicity of most common (not all) fracture stimulation fluid. To see what is commonly in fracture treated water please go to http://fracfocus.org/
I find it hard to believe we are reduced to debating such useless drivel with such stupid people. This water with additives is going miles into the ground and a good portion stays there. That which returns is not intended for potable use. Alarmist nuts please go back to your Mom’s basement.
I am really disappointed by the polarization of every issue. Both the left and right get caught in the trap set for them. I’m neither left nor right, up nor down. I hug trees, but would rather converse with a down to earth farmer than a city greenie.
In disagreement with a ‘builders labourer for a big construction company’ mate, over there being too many trees on his property, and some should be cut down to let more light in. But he wouldn’t even cut down a sappling, yet I’m the one with dreadlocks.
Stop putting people into boxes. It ruins the debate, and you end up going around in circles. Believe me, it wasn’t city greenies that kicked off the CSG stink in Oz. it was the farmers. And I’d hardly call them lefty greenies. There are regular problems with gas leaks. Toxic ponds and roads all over their farms, processing infrastructure, noise pollution, wear and tear of roads, and land values reduced. It is fracturing communities everywhere.
You can forget this issue being a left and right debate. This is about survival. This is about the bigger picture of corporate exploitation out of control. And your childrens childrens children will be still paying for the mess left behind.
What right do we humans have to plunder the landscape all over the planet. Bulldozing it. Drilling it. Fracking it.Blowing it up. And leaving a toxic cocktail of chemicals in the ground risking the life source for numerous generations. Forget the politics. This is a fight for sanity, and for life on earth.
And there is a great deal of methane that comes out of coal mining too – one of the biggest problems for miners.
In the UK the Abbeystead water plant blew up, killing 4 locals who were touring the site. Someone wanted a ciggy, as they always do whatever the circumstances, and did not have the decency to wait until back outside again. So 4 people died, as methane was leaking out of nearby coal seams. Not sure whether this was listed as an industrial accident, or yet more smoking deaths.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/23/newsid_2969000/2969125.stm
.
Regards the Blackpool fracking earthquakes, I think this is usual hype from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. They have no one on their staff who would know the difference between a spanner and a screwdriver, so don’t expect the BBC to give a balanced story about a technical subject.
In this case, I understand that the drilling was still in progress. ie, the drill hole was not pressurised, and so at this point in time this was just a drilling operation, not a fracking operation.
.
Russell Good says:
June 6, 2011 at 1:23 am
What right do we humans have to plunder the landscape all over the planet. Bulldozing it. Drilling it. Fracking it.Blowing it up. And leaving a toxic cocktail of chemicals in the ground risking the life source for numerous generations. Forget the politics. This is a fight for sanity, and for life on earth.>>>
What right to beavers have to chop down trees and build dams? How dare the fox eat a rabbit? And that expression “do bears sh*t in the woods?” turns out… it is true! They do sh*t in woods! How dare they! What right does Smallpox have to wipe out entire communities? Where does Anthrax get the right to kill off herds of cattle? And who gave tape worms permission to live inside of people?
Russel, have a read through the articles on this site, and actually read them, and the comments. You’ll find that we’re surviving just fine. We live longer than any generation before us, we grow bigger and stronger than any generation before us because we have better nutrition and better disease control, and if you take a careful look at the facts regarding pollution, you’ll find that we’re the first generation in a long time (perhaps ever?) to leave the planet cleaner than the generation before. Does that mean we’re perfect? Not even close! But the notion that we’re doomed? Nonsense.
On the other hand, the generations that come after us are so heavily in debt that maybe you are right, civilization’s collapse is just around the corner. But due to bad money management, not the environment.