Skip to comments."Gasland," film on Marcellus Shale drilling's environment effects, to be screened in Carlisle
Posted on 06/16/2010 12:11:29 PM PDT by epithermal
Kathryn Klaber, the executive director of Pennsylvanias Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, said, "Our understanding, based on previews of the film, is that its loaded with misleading claims and untruths, and completely fails to recognize the well-known fact that hydraulic fracturing has been used in this state for a half-century, and according to state and federal regulators, has never once been found to adversely impact the publics underground drinking water supplies."
(Excerpt) Read more at pennlive.com ...
I know farmers in Idaho who when they drilled their water wells found gas in the water. So, instead of whining about it like environmentalists, they hooked it up and used it to power their farms.
Well, who said environmentalists were under any obligation to tell the truth? I mean, we’re already drowning the polar bears - who can all swim.
The moonbat wackos are in full bore hate over this action. They are creating all kinds of fictitious ground water maladies to claim as sins against their hallowed precepts.
Generally, any Obama supporter is an American enemy.
UMMMM, hydro-fraccing has been done here for decades and no one has bitched about it yet. My Dad did it for years for oil, and never caused a problem. What is your agenda?
I live in North-Central Pennsylvania and supported
natural gas drilling initially. However, our small town
has now seen traffic jams, crumbling roads, nonstop truck traffic, roughneck’s in brawls at the local pub, tainted water in wells, rent prices going through the roof and
a gorgeous countryside blotted with drilling pads.
On the plus side it has brought jobs and investment. I still support gas drilling, but I’m beginnig to wonder what town life will be like here in ten years.
To clarify, I am against horizontal drilling here in upstate NY.
the full-court press is on from the Enviros to shut Marcellus Shale drilling down. (in the end though I suspect insatiable Democrat greed for more revenue to spend will win out)
Being good stewards of our natural resources is not excusively the domain of liberals.
“Being good stewards of our natural resources is not excusively the domain of liberals.”
True, but the distortion of facts to support environmental hysteria is the tactic most used by the environmental-socialist agenda. The wells that are being fracked are thousands of feet deep and have never been shown to contaminate water wells that are 10’s to 100’s of feet deep. Don’t take my word for it, but at least think about the 4000 to 5000 feet of solid rock between a frac job and a water well and ask yourself what is the probability that fluids that deep will contaminate a shallow water well?
Frac on, dude! No problem here; my wife & I love the royalties we get from our wells; no adverse impacts to date.
I own minerals under lease I know what I'm talking about. Do you like near gas fields, active fracing wells, etc?
I would love to have wells near me, preferably on my property. I am not going to get in a war with you over fracking. If you don’t like it then don’t allow it. But then don’t start complaining about supporting Mideast nations by importing their oil and gas, while they use our money to support terrorist organizations.
I know the fracking issue is a polarizing one in the eastern USA. But the size of the potential reserves there could take us a long way towards energy independence. If the eastern USA rejects gas development, then I am sure Texas will be glad to sell their gas to the Eastern states at greatly increased prices in the future.
As an investor of natural gas, I would absolutely love gas prices to climb...but not at the expense of future sustainability of the environment.
The issue is not black and white, it's a multi-faceted issue with competing and compliementary issues at play.
Have a nice day.
I was hoping to get back with you with some references I had found regarding the potential hazards of fracking that I dug up a few months ago when I got into a battle on a liberal forum about it. Unfortunately, I can’t find my links in the thousands I have. I understand when you ask for objective studies of the issue because most studies are done either by industry or environmental groups and it gets difficult to sort out the propaganda. I think one of the more objective studies was done by the Department of Energy, but I believe they hired industry consultants to do it. While industry consultants may be deemed somewhat biased, most have PhD’s in petroleum engineering or hydrogeology and will provide fact based information upon which to draw a conclusion. Environmental hysteria is usually based on anecdotal evidence from people who don’t really understand anything about geology.
The reason I posted this story was because I believe it is mostly propaganda, but until I see it I won’t know for sure.
I consider myself environmentally conscious and believe the #1 resource we need to protect is our water supply. FYI, I have worked for both evil oil companies and for environmental protection agencies. It is my opinion you are usually going to get more objective information from oil companies.
I trust the oil companies more simply because they stand to lose a lot more if they are wrong.
What does an environmentalist lose if they’re wrong? Nothing.
So, in my mind, we not only need to consider the environmental impact, but the infrastructure management, and long-range planning for our communinities. Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject.....have a nice evening.
I found it extremely disappointing to see how the pro-drillling side feels the need to propagate lies, also. Read the words they use VERY carefully, and you see they use the same techniques as the Left.
The truth is in-between.
I am not sure what lies you are referring to by the pro-drilling side, but I am very curious to read some of them. You may be interested to read an analysis of the misinformation purported to be in the new Gasland movie here:
I don’t doubt you that proponents of the drilling may be misrepresenting the truth also, but I have yet to see any examples. I would seriously like you to point me to some.
I understand why the local people are hesitant to allow development of the potential natural gas resources in their area, and if they want to shut it down, fine. I just don’t want to then have to listen to them gripe about all the windmills being put up in their area to replace the gas.
Before the drilling is shut down I would like people living in the area to consider that there could conceivably be over 100 years of natural gas supply for their region in the ground under them. If they decide not to drill it, then I am sure the Arab nations will be glad to continue supplying their needs until such time as our currency is no longer worth anything.
PENNSYLVANIA: There has never been any evidence of fracking ever
causing direct contamination of fresh groundwater in Pennsylvania or
anywhere else. (PA DEPs Scott Perry, Scranton Times-Tribune, 4/2/10)
NEW YORK: I think is clear that when put into the proper
context and perspective, the reported information shows that
the incidence of spills and other pollution events at modern
naturlal gas well sites is exceedingly low (Alexander B.
Pete Grannis, commissioner of NY DEC, 12/30/09)
TEXAS: Though hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 50
years in Texas, our records do not indicate a single documented
contamination case associated with hydraulic fracturing.
(Texas Railroad Commissions Victor Carrillo, 5/29/2009)
OHIO: After 25 years of investigating citizen complaints of
contamination, [our] geologists have not documented a single
incident involving contamination of ground water attributed to
hydraulic fracturing. (Scott Kell, deputy chief of Ohio DNR, 5/27/09)
NEW MEXICO: [W]e have found no example of contamination of
usable water where the cause was claimed to be hydraulic fracturing.
(Mark Fesmire, director of NM Oil Conservation Division, 5/29/09)
ALABAMA: I can state with authority that there have been no
documented cases of drinking water contamination caused
by such hydraulic fracturing operations in our state. (Barry H.
Nick Tew, Jr., Oil & Gas supervisor for Alabama, 5/27/09)
Deceased fish along a 35-mile stretch of creek
in western Pennsylvania attributed to natural
; EPA debunks the claim: The situation in Dunkard Creek should
be considered a chronic exposure since chloride levels were
elevated above the criteria for long periods of time. (EPA, 11/23/09)
Local media cite glaring error: 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)
Methane in the water in Fort Lupton, Colo. said
to be the result of natural gas development.
Colorado debunks the claim: 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.
Fracking chemicals are considered
The entire universe of additives used in the fracturing process is
known to the public and the state agencies that represent them.
Not only do individual states mandate disclosure, the federal
government does as well. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) mandates this information be kept at every
wellsite, and made readily available to response and medical
personnel in case of an emergency.
The fracking itself is like a mini-earthquake.
In order to frack, you need some fracking
fluid a mix of over 596 chemicals. (6:50)
The fracturing process uses a mixture of fluids comprised almost
entirely (99.5%) of water and sand. The remaining materials, used
to help deliver the water down the wellbore, are typically found and
used around the house. The average fracturing operation utilizes
fewer than 12 of these components, according to the Ground Water
Protection Council not 596.
Over the course of its history, fracturing has not only been used to
increase the flow of oil and natural gas from existing wells, but also
to access things like water and geothermal energy. Its even been
used by EPA to clean up Superfund sites.
What I didnt know was that the 2005 energy
bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney
exempts the oil and natural gas industries from
the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act...and about a dozen other
environmental regulations. (6:05)
The oil and natural gas industry is regulated under every single
one of these federal laws under provisions of each that are
relevant to its operations.
The 2005 energy bill was supported by nearly three-quarters of the
U.S. Senate, including then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. In the
U.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting
the final bill.
Wish it were that simple. Folks - and I mean, good, down-to-earth, hardworking Americans who paid for their land with real dollars and real labor - are being forced into situations that should raise the ire of any good conservative. I own a hunt camp in PA that is affected by all this. I'm a right-wing nut-job conservative and I'm pissed. Here's why:
Forced pooling. This is a form of eminent domain that takes the choice of leasing/not-leasing away from a land owner. If a certain number of surrounding properties sign leases in a leasing unit, then the hold-outs are forced into it without signing any kind of agreement that will protect their interests. That means their mineral rights are surrendered, the minerals (gas, in this case) will be taken anyway, and they will be given a token pittance in exchange.
Then there is the split estate condition - a situation where one owner owns the surface rights and a different owner owns the subsurface oil-gas-mineral rights (OGM). In the U.S., the OGM rights trump the surface rights. Not only can they not opt out of drilling, the surface owners have not been able to control where the access roads go, where the drill pads go, where the tank batteries go, or any of the infrastructure that supports the well before-during-after the drilling. Thus we have these activities going on literally outside American citizens' windows, their fields being converted into impoundment ponds, crops damaged, herd damaged, timber damaged, noise 24/7, odors, light shining in their windows all night.... The noise, disruption and industrialization go a long way toward 1) reducing surface property values because they are blighted by the industrial zone, and 2) taking away whatever enjoyment the surface owner had in the place.
The latest good times in PA is forcing landowners to accommodate pipelines on their property. The pipeline companies are seeking public utility status so that property can be seized via eminent domain (option of public condemnation) for the pipeline. Others have convinced the state to utilize roadside easements. It's not that people are against the pipelines 100% - they're necessary, everyone knows that - it's little things like running it on the OTHER side of the road where there's an empty field, instead of running it through people's yards. There were several pipeline explosions this summer that have people nervous about having them so close to their houses. It's a valid concern given these are rural areas with equally rural emergency services. It's also important to remember that the majority of these pipelines will be gathering lines and all the gas in them is pre-market going from the wellhead to the compressor station where it will be odorized and brought into distribution. So neighbors are asking if this is *really* a public utility activity, or just taking more private land to support private companies.
Another form of taking is having to subsidize the whole mess by sacrificing public infrastructure. The roads, particularly. Back in the 50's there was a desire by liberal pols to 'bring PA into modern times' by capping the rural roads with asphalt. Those same roads all have signs that say "10 TON LIMIT". Because those roads are just a dirt road with a cap - they were NEVER engineered to handle anything except rural traffic. Now we have hundreds and thousands of gravel trucks, water trucks, chemical trucks, all manner of heavy equipment running over them. They're being reduced to rubble and will be dirt roads once again. Yes, yes, the companies all pledge to restore the roads "when they're done". They might be done 20 years from now (it's one of those lease loop-hole tricks) but in the meantime, the local populace will foot the bill. These municipalities can't afford to do that.
Then there is all the taking of the water. It requires millions upon millions of gallons of water to run these kinds of drill operations. Its coming out of the streams and lakes. They're low, really low. But only so shockingly low in the areas where there's drilling (it seems to rain just fine everywhere else in the state). The outdoorsmen (not environmentalist wackos, but the kind of men you'd go have a beer with while you fish) are very alarmed that there doesn't seem to be much management going on. Just taking.
So please PLEASE keep in mind that not everyone who is opposed to this is a leftist dirty-hippie environmentalist wacktard who wants us all to live in mud huts or caves in the cold and the dark! These are conservative Americans who are speaking out over the taking and taking and taking and taking of their private property and its value to support this enterprise. (Kelo vs. New London anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?) Not everyone who is opposed to this believes in a "We do it this way, right now or civilization ends!" scenario. By all means drill, but do it with less impact, less coercion, and less abuse of rights.
A Penn State professor by the name of Terry Engelder recently stated that enduring these kinds of abuses were part of a NECESSARY SACRIFICE (See page 4 and 8 of this .PDF "PSU Prof Disputes Damage"). (Engelder is also an industry shill - working for a consulting firm but has failed to disclose to PSU what his compensation is.)
Necessary sacrifice. Really? Is that what we've come to in this country where some Citizens have to sacrifice their rights, their property and their pursuit of happiness just because the mob says so?
Interesting that so many on this thread seem to be down with that.
Just a tight sphinctered one trying to make a differene.
Nothing of substance
Scott Perry doesn't know much about the PA DEP or it's findings. The DEP found Cabot Oil-n-Gas Corp responsible for contamination of wells in Dimock, PA last year. The Dimock citizens have filed suit against Cabot in Fed court based on the PA DEP's findings.
Press Release: PA DEP Takes Aggressive Action Against Cabot Oil & Gas...
.PDF of the Consent Order and Agreement. Note Cabot's signature at the end. It's a matter of law and record that because of their insufficient well casings, Cabot is responsible for fouling the water around Dimock.
Excellent points, thanks for taking the time to provide them. These kind of issues that you point out are the most important, as opposed to the sky is falling environmentalist whining. I am going to take some time to investigate your points more thoroughly, especially about the forced pooling.
My primary concern is with all the claims of drinking water contamination that propaganda like Gaslands make. As a groundwater geologist, I need to see hard data before I reach a conclusion on any claims of contamination. I am still trying to find conclusive evidence.
It is really, really tempting to say, "ZOMG Libtard made a film!! Lies!! All lies!!!" I've seen the film and yeah, it's biased and artsy, but it's a great conversation starter that reaches across the whole political spectrum. The people he goes to interview are salt of the earth folks - rural Americans, without wealth or influence. Americans who have had to shell out thousands of dollars to get their water tested, try to install filtration systems, and then give up and sign their first amendment rights away (confidentiality agreements) in order for the gas co to bring potable water to their homes. The injustice is staggering. For this kind of thing to be happening in the U.S, in the 21st century, is obscene.
Energy In Depth is not a credible source. It's a PR firm hired by the gas companies. Each of their supposed "debunking" points takes the cues from the same liberal spin tactics (referenced previously in the thread and dismissed out of hand). Shades of the truth, out-of-context quotes, outdated studies, etc. Anyone who clings to it as Universal and Absolute Truth looks rather foolish to the folks on the front lines. It's spin and marketing. Just because it has a "ZOMG Libtard is WRONG" theme, doesn't mean it's correct. Each and every single one of their points can be "debunked" in turn.
You might have heard of Argumentum ad Ignorantium if not, you'll find plenty of it when you go looking for studies proving this or that or the other. It translates to "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The studies haven't been done. There are hundreds of instances that aren't investigated or studied! We don't even know how many due to the confidentiality agreements. (Stockholders might want to look into that, btw) and the state environmental agencies don't have a fraction of the staffing they'd need to do the job right.
We do know that the original EPA study wasn't looking for the things that are popping up in the water. That's why they're doing another one and actually looking at the impact on residential areas. As a groundwater geologist, you know that tests are specific and expensive and you can't do them all all the time. Further, geomorphology and hydrology varies from region to region. Thus a study that proves nothing in the San Juan Basin is irrelevant in PA. Totally different climate, totally different geomorphology. Speaking of geology, the Divide Creek Contamination was indeed found to have thermogenic methane. It also had a fault that was 1) either unmapped or 2) known about and they drilled anyway. The gas came bubbling right on up.
My theories: I doubt very much that frack solutions getting into the aquifer is due to migration up through strata. I think it is getting in through piss poor concrete casings. Concrete is a fine art and there are a lot of fly-by-night sub contractors floating around the gas patch. I think that is probably the route for most of the thermogenic migrations. Marcellus shale gas has groovy isotopic fingerprints that make it easy to spot. I think that some part of the drilling process is causing otherwise stable pockets of shallow biogenic methane to migrate - quickly and in large volumes. I'm thinking something in the vibrational profile is doing it because methane migrations are known to precede earthquakes and ultrasound frequencies are being studied to wriggle methane out of coal seams - both for collection and to vent coal mines. There has also been some work studying carbon dioxide migrations in areas where explosive charges are detonated in the soil.
Bottom line is that something is going on and no one has done any homework. It's much easier to pump billions of dollars into lobbying efforts and convince the burecrats and pols that there's nothing to see here, perfectly safe, pay no attention to the country bumpkins with flammable water, move along move along. T. Boone's agenda is more important than their rights. And how is it that their #1 advocate right now is a ZOMG LIBTARD with a camera??????????
< / brain addle>
“Argumentum ad Ignorantium”
Yes, I have been having discussions with another PA geologist who argues that some cases of contamination are being concealed by confidentiality agreements. Without having seen Gaslands, I can’t say exactly what evidence they point to for groundwater contamination, except for the Energy In Depth examination of some of their evidence. I have a real concern about evidence presented by some environmental organizations to support contamination. I look at this from the standpoint of having done actual ground water contamination statistical studies for the EPA, so I am very critical of non-documented sampling and analysis. I am not anti-clean water, but I am anti-enviro BS.
But, I agree with you that the biggest worry of contamination is possible poor cement jobs and unknown old existing deep gas wells in the vicinity. And, I am sure PA state doesn’t have the inspectors to catch everything.
I say if the risk of drilling for Marcellus gas is too great, then build nukes instead and keep the gas in the ground for future generations. But I know nukes are another contentious issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.