And having read all of that it boils down to not having a permit and not following the law. Seems rather obvious and seriously not partisan to me.

Thanks for an objective article.  Well done.

Fox was denied a permit after repeated requests to obtain one. The GOP has stonewalled and obstructed his efforts to attend and record public hearings. That’s unconstitutional. ABC was at the hearing with cameras, and they HAVE a permit, and they were still told to leave. There’s been next to no coverage of the fracking issue in the media, so finding “liberal media bias” in this story doesn’t pass the smell test.

From what I understand the hearing was broadcast on CSPAN.   It wasn’t about the hearing being secret – it was about him grandstanding with his camera.  This guy is an opportunist trying to make money and push his agenda.

The guy is a hero who has seen first hand what natural gas drilling has done to communities around the country and is striving to get that message out over the flabbergasting quantities of expensive advertising and PR spin, lobbying, and political contributions coming from the industry. If you opened your eyes and really looked at this issue, you’d be grateful that Fox has the courage to put himself on the line in this way. Don’t assume he’s in this for the money. If money were what he wanted, he could make it far more easily. He’s a very smart and talented individual.

“they comprise only a small
fraction of “fracking fluid” – 98% of it is water and sand.”

This is an absurd point of contention.  The percentage of the solution means nothing depending on the chemicals used.  The active ingredient in most psychiatric medications is a fraction of a percent but that doesn’t keep them from affecting your behavior.

The Republicans don’t want the truth to come out.  Their whole world is built on lies and more lies.  

The person writing this article which is his opinion and interpretation of the facts he wished to offer and support in his way, he wants further investigation of fracking but fails to note that republican opposition and the work of Cheneys energy task force in preventing any investigation of fracking and that is a real problem with getting to the truth in this matter and real facts about the issues involved.

Fracking is a very dangerous thing, not just the fracking itself as a process but what it does is dangerous it shatters bed rock as an unintended by product of the gas release and extraction process not just the rock formations trapping the gas but all the rock surrounding it including the bed rock formations that ground water sits on, or not as has been shown to be the case after fracking, and that is something the gas extraction and fracking companies DO NOT WANT LEGALLY CONFIRMED as they would be held to account as both responsible and liable for.

ABC.was not at the hearing and they so stated. A Josh Fox associate tried to enter the hearing to film by claiming to be from ABC. ABC has categorically denied they had a crew at this hearing. Keep drinking the Josh Kool Aid Dude.

more Kool Aid…do some research, you haven’t a clue.

I’m not sure which facts you are referring to as me interpreting, but what I presented here were the contentions of a man who has been held up as an expert while having what are some glaring errors in his narrative. These are not my versions of nitpicking details, the NY Times piece explores this film extensively, and he is on tape essentially dismissing his most important visual evidence. I would think these would be cause for further inspection by the media.

I’m just fine with you questioning me and my details, but one might think when shown a number factual errors from the film maker you might have a bit of curiosity of him and his intentions as well.  Fox may be on to something, but when he has these flaws which are fundamental in his contentions it ultimately will undermine those efforts. When he wants to blame everything from non-existant animal demise and wrongly attributed fish kills to fracking he is easily dismissed as a boogey-man crank. And when he blatantly describes fracking as using near 600 chemicals when only a dozen or so are actually used you must seriously question his position as an “expert”. 

There was no “Josh Fox associate” who tried to enter the hearing claiming to be from ABC.  It was a freelance journalist named Kerry Meyer who has no association with Fox. Keep drinking the industry’s benzene-laced Kood-Aid, dude.

My God….an intellectual cesspool…fracing does not shatter bedrock, it cracks the shale with the gas trapped inside. The cracks are so tiny, they are propped open by the particals of sand in the frac fluid and most of the chemicals are readily found in common kitchen and cleaning products. You want a list of what is in a well..??? Then go here http://fracfocus.org/ it's the law, Dude. The Cheney angle or “Halliburton Loophole” is a red herring, too. Fracing isn’t covered under the Clean Water Act because it has absolutely nothing to do with clean or potable water. Fracing is heavily regulated by state regulators, exactly who should be monitoring the practice. You should be embarrassed to post such intellectual drivel.

I’ve done plenty of research.  Have you?

Congrats mg (mental giant, perhaps)….you’re onto something now….

Freelance journalist Kerry Meyer was also turned away for trying to film the meeting. He was fooled into thinking that he had been hired by ABC according to Zach Kurz, the committee’s communication director. Meyer left the meeting without resistance.

And who hired Kerry Meyer….??? As POLITICO reported, the videographer who had been turned away was actually hired by Gasland producer Trish Adlesic to film the hearing, not by ABC. Politico is hardly a conservative bastion and they’re not the only entity on top of this story. So mg81992, how’s the view of your pancreas from where your head’s at…???

See above

Hey Side Show, I know a great deal more about all this than you do, so you can keep insulting me if you want, but you’re not bringing any credit on yourself. 

mg….I do declare, all of us are duly impressed with the obvious scope of your knowledge and we do genuflect humbly in your exalted presence….however, when you open your mouth/sit at your keyboard, I can hear the drag goin’ out….when I was a kid, we used to go down to the creek every spring and spear bottom feeders like you….catch my drift..Dude..???

 thats a no?

So you have no problem with Fox saying nearly 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, when the accurate amount is between 5 and 15?  Sidestepping your comparison of fracking fluid to psychiatric meds (speaking of absurd points) I do not see how calling 1/50 a “small fraction” is wrong. The problem is in the accuracy of Fox’s reporting. Yes, chemicals are used, but Fox makes it sound like the mere presence of chemicals is bad. Some may be. ne of those primary chemicals often used in fracking fluid is also an ingredient in ice cream. This is an issue that calls for sober analysis. Fox’s film trends more towards hyberbole and witch-hunt tactics.

You can smell the methane when you turn on the sink.  I wonder if they smelled it 1978.  

Those chemicals they use to crack the bedrock are very toxic. Fracking is not regulated at all.  I recommend you do some research and learn something before you dare comment on this board.    

I didn’t say that I didn’t have a problem with Fox using an inaccurate number. In fact, the only issue I had with your piece was that you are using that percentage as evidence when it really doesn’t tell us much.

Yes, 2% is a small percentage, but my point is that the actual percentage means nothing if we don’t know how potent these chemicals are or how much of this mixture is pumped in, hence the medication comparison.  So just saying that the solution is 98% water and sand does not necessarily mean that it’s any safer to use, or any worse for that matter.  All a percentage tells us is the frequency of the chemicals in the solution, nothing more.

You and I both agree that this is an issue that requires sober analysis and you won’t get an argument from me about Gasland.  

That is wildly inaccurate, based on some of the information put forth by Josh Fox. His movie states gas companies are excempt from numerous environmental Acts, and what he describes as “Democratic” regulations. As the NY Times states:
 
The oil and gas industry enjoys exemptions from portions of those environmental laws. But it is not completely exempt from any of them.

There are provisions in some, exempting fracking from portions, but the balance of the regulations remain in effect. For instance, some injection methods are excempt from Clean Water Acts, largely because they take place 8,000 feet down, well below the water table. However the companies are still bound by guidelines at the surface levels.

Agree. And just to understand, when I said “Small” it was not meant as “insignificant”. It was a response to the description of fracking fluid in the movie, and clarifying the composite of that fluid.

They could, and in the video Fox informs that tap water was being ignited in the 1930s.

Yea, this is all the evil Republicans and Dick Cheny’s work. Except this had to be passed by Congress to go into effect and — uh-oh – Sen. Barack Obama voted in favor of this same legislation.

I’ll “dare comment” any damn time I please you vacuous clown. As for your comment above…your ignorance is profound, there isn’t one iota of fact in your statement..none. As for your comment below, I have a methane vent on my well and there isn’t a gas well within an hour’s drive of my home. That’s biogenic methane, commonly known as swamp gas. It’s common to find the same excavating a ditch or foundation here and the local water well drillers have records of biogenic methane in water wells dating back at least 80 years. There’s much gas drilling in Oregon, is there..?? You’ve smelled the gas in/near your abode. Like Peter Griffin, your experience with methane is limited to your flatulence. As for the regulations you say don’t exist…here’s a crow sandwich for ya Mr.Griffin…jerk.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/laws%2C_regulations___guidelines/20306
http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-84024/0130-FS-DEP4288.pdf
http://fracfocus.org/ 
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/industry_resources/20301
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/public_resources/20303

I get it now.  Thanks for the clarification!

You’re talking about a different type of gas. They’re going in a lot deeper than your standard everyday well.  These casings fail 50% of the time and so that means the toxic chemicals do get in the water table. You say they’re not harmful?  Why don’t you put a teaspoon of windex and furniture polish in your glass of water and drink that everyday for a year. You’ll be having to get a new liver in 6 months.  I’ve worked on a few oil rigs in my day and I can tell, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.  I lived all over country and I have experience to back up my claims.  

People in the areas where the fracking is taking place weren’t getting these ailments before they started fracking and they’ve had wells for years.  

Um… Methane is odorless, that’s why it’s so dangerous. They have to add the smell we associate with natural gas after it’s extracted so people don’t blow themselves up. If people can smell something in their tap water, there’s more than just methane in there to worry about.

So, he took it upon himself to break the rules and that somehow becomes an issue of free-speech? That’s Liberal spin no matter how you look at it.

Tyler, you’re clueless….period. I’m talking wells that average well over a mile in depth before going horizontal and usually 6 wells per pad. That’s thermogenic methane Mr. Know-It-All. The methane migration that occurs here is biogenic…meaning it’s from decaying organic matter near the surface, hence the moniker “swamp gas.”. I live 45 minutes from Dimock, PA., the scene of much finger pointing and frivolous law suits. And, I’ve been to Dimock more times than I care to count and talked to more locals than I could list. Unlike your hero, I came without movie cameras and water buffalos to grandstand for the media. And unlike you, I know the fraud perpetrated on this community by the so called “Carter Road Litigants.” The methane in question in Dimock is biogenic, not thermogenic and that has been determined by EPA, PA DEP and Duke University. Biogenic gas is near the surface, hence my prior comment regarding excavations at or near the surface….am I spelling this out for you Mr. Know-It-All…???…am I going slow enough to facilitate your feeble retention…??? And if you can find one soul here who is sick from fracing, I’ll kiss both your ass and Josh Fox’s in Times Square and I’ll give you an hour to gather a crowd. And for those non-existent regulations…here they are again….you look great with that egg all over your face…Sad Sack…
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/…http://www.elibrary.dep.state….http://fracfocus.org/ http://www.portal.state.pa.us/…http://www.portal.state.pa.us/...

That’s not quite right. If you actually listen to what he says about what happened (you won’t get that from Mr. Slager’s reporting, by the way), he applied for the permit and the chairman of the subcommittee and his staff gave him the run around. They didn’t want him there and they screwed with him. Now remember, this was a public hearing by the federal government, and Josh Fox is a citizen and a journalist. Since you’re a conservative, I assume you’re not a big fan of the federal government and agree that citizens have the right to full transparency from their government. Josh Fox had the right under the constitution to attend and film that hearing and it was denied to him because the chairman knew Fox’s agenda differed from his own. That should not be acceptable in a democracy.

Its not pure methane so it has an odor to it.  

You bought into the lies.. You’ve probably inhaled too much of that gas already. You probably think coal dust doesn’t cause lung cancer either.  You’re just a mindless follower that will believe everything they tell you.  

The bottom-line is, he did not have the necessary accreditation, ask to leave and he didn’t, and then was escorted out. His fight in not with the 1st Amendment, it is with how accreditation is achieved. As a Conservative I would be on his side if he were to fight this fight on the grounds that accreditation is not handed out fairly and on a even playing field. It has everything to do with partisan-politics and little to do with the 1st Amendment rights.

And what of the Politico report that said a producer of the film tried to dupe another journalist by claiming to be from ABC, and film on their behalf? Clearly they were playing games and tried to maneuver their wayinto a meeting they were not accredited to attend. Fox showed up anyway and made a grandstand of the issue.

I’ll would second that caconservative for an accredited press person. The hearing chamber was full of press people with notebooks and laptops…none were filming. But remember, Fox is not a journalist. He has no standing or credentials as a member of the press. He’s a film maker, a poor excuse for one, and his product is fiction not documentary. Also remember, his producer attempted to introduce a second camera into the hearing while hiring a freelancer under the pretense the job was for ABC. There’s no doubt Fox knew he would be ejected and probably arrested. He had two motives…grandstand for the media and secure tape which he could selectively edit for his next piece of outlandish fiction. He succeeded in the former. Anyone believing Gasland is a fair and accurate portrayal of natural gas exploration or that the premise of the film is genuine also believes Oliver Stone’s “JFK” is an accurate record of the John Kennedy assassination.

Brad Slager has also written for NewsBusters  whose mission is “exposing & combating liberal media bias”

He also fails to mention Mike Sornahans detailed article “Who killed Dunkard Creek” showing Dunkard creek had been a target of illegal shale waste dumpers for years. There’s a guy facing criminal charges right now for it.

Also interesting is that the National Wildlife Federation concurs with everything Gasland stated and studies conducted and released this year by Colorado and Wyoming state agencies also show a marked decrease in populations of these species in areas where drilling is occurring. I’m not sure where he’s getting his misguided info that they’ve increased.

My conclusion? Brad Slager is an agenda driven hack.  

OK Sad Sack Tyler….one more time…..in typical ignorant, arrogant, sophomoric and clueless, agenda-driven, lefty fashion you ignore facts and assail the messenger while comparing apples and oranges. Explain to me how coal dust is germane and bear in mind, my ancestry has several generations of anthracite miners. You sucked down “Gasland” hook, line and sinker…so much for your mental prowess and your ability to vet info. You said you had experience with drilling rigs and you’re a self proclaimed authority on fracing. Well, grab a handful of that frac sand, reach for you’re sphincter (it’s like your mouth only on the reverse side) and Drill, Baby, Drill.

I’m not sure why this is supposed to be a “gotcha” revelation? I wrote one piece for NB, concerning movies. Yes.  And . . .? How does that impact on facts? You “exposing” something here does nothing to counter the content. What agenda do I exhibit here outside of exploring the facts?  My misguided info came courtesy of the NY Times (link cited in the article) and Fox’s own words on video. Fox presents details on film that are proven incorrect.
 
What Dunkard Creek shale waste dumping has to do with the inaccuracies listed in this article is a mystery, as I never addressed it. But you do nothing to address Fox’s wrongful conclusions regarding fracking fluid, “unregulated” practices, unattributed fish kills, nor the flamable water that predates fracking by decades. Your conclusions are your own, but what that means is confusing.   

Again, not true…methane is colorless, odorless and tasteless…it’s also not regulated by clean water or safe water regulations and it has nothing to do with fracing. Why is it not regulated…because it’s only hazard is from accumulation in a water well, basement or confined space. Then, methane is an explosion/fire hazard. Therefore, if you live in an area where biogenic methane is endemic, it behooves one to have a vent on your well. That’s why there is a vent on my well. Further, a disturbance to the earth (drilling, excavating, etc.) does not necessarily accompany methane migration. Migration occurs naturally all over northeast Pennsylvania. Check out Salt Springs State Park near Montrose, PA in Susquehanna County. Those springs have been flammable long before any well was drilled in the county. There are records of George Washington’s soldiers lighting water on fire here, and I have personally witnessed methane fires in ice fishing holes…all biogenic methane. Biogenic methane will typically seek the path of least resistance as it migrates underground. That’s why it is detected most frequently in water wells, basements, foundations, ditches and naturally occurring valleys and geographically lower areas. Obviously, given the flammable nature of the gas, basements and water wells can present a problem. With respect to water wells, the gas will collect at the bottom of the bore and it will stay there unless and until a perfect storm of temperature and barometric pressure cause it to rise in the casing. Most often, this phenomenon (saturation) is revealed by effevesence in the tap discharge. If you’re seeing this, you need to vent your well. This is also the cause of the flaming faucets in “Gasland” which the lying fraud and profiteer Josh Fox blamed on gas drilling and fracing. A failure to vent a water well saturated with methane normally means the gas could collect in a) your basement, if that’s where your well is, b) the well head…that’s the gap in your well casing between the natural water table and the top of the casing when your pump isn’t running, or c) in your well house if your well is in an out building. These are the facts Tyler…you keep jumping on the Fox bandwagon…that’s your choice, but then you’re part of the problem and those who truly know the science and facts will blow you off like the bag of hot air you are now.

That’s a funny comment coming from someone who just claimed fracing wasn’t regulated at all, then when the writer corrected you with solid fact you went back and edited your comment with “or very little”.

 You are an agenda driven hack. Anyone that would cite another agenda driven hack like Phelim McAleer proves that fact.

What McAleer did was browbeat Josh Fox by asking him the same question ten times, receiving an answer to his question each time.
He then edited all the answers into the one answer he wanted. I saw the stupid youtube he released versus another shot by someone that wasn’t working with McaLeer.
All that was an attempt to ingratiate himself to Andrew Breitbart, king of the agenda driven hacks, and push his climate denial claims. Claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny either. There was a reason his films flopped. It was because no one was buying the snake oil he was selling.

Let me quote you. “In another passage of the film Fox blames a massive fish kill in a Washington County, Pa., creek to natural gas drilling.”

“What Dunkard Creek shale waste dumping has to do with the inaccuracies
listed in this article is a mystery, as I never addressed it.”

What do you mean you didn’t reference it. Apparently you just didn’t know the name of the body of water you were referencing.

“Notable in the nine-page presentment from the grand jury is the mention
of Dunkard Creek, site of a massive 2009 fish kill over a 30-mile
stretch along the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border.”
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11077/1132812-454.stm#ixzz1lTsFj4QIHad you done any actual research you might have found this and Sornahans article. Even if you had found them it didn’t really fit your agenda so you probably wouldn’t have included them anyway. All of your references are old stale and dated anyway. I was mentioned in a different Sornahan article because I live in a shale gas area and I have half a dozen natural gas wells within a mile of my home. He found me through some blog posts I had written on the absolute corruption that shale gas has contaminated my state government with. I’ve studied the issue and I know what I’m talking about because I live it everyday.Would you like to see my video collection of natural gas bubbling up in ponds and forcing water out of shallow wells? How about my collection of drilling permits showing horizontally drilled and hydraulically fractured wells at 1200 to 1800 feet deep?  Or how about my collection of FOIA’d documents showing that the industry has been allowed to act as their own investigators in suspected water contamination cases? You don’t know anything about these things because all you did was read a bunch of crap on the internet that sounded good to you and hacked together a 2 bit story about it. You didn’t even bother to research it that well because you didn’t think anyone would actually call you on your BS. All you have for reference is a failed film maker, anecdotal stories and questionable reports from Colorado officials who have since been fired or resigned.
http://coloradoindependent.com/40480/did-cogas-kathy-hall-call-it-quits-over-fracking-fluid-in-my-mouth-comment

Hang it up hack.

Go back to writing for NewsBusters and the likes of Breitbart and that crew. I’m sure your sloppy research and sketchy references will be appreciated there.

If we watched the hearing on CSPAN it would be devoid of the monotoned, barely move your lips, overdramatic, sky is falling narration that the ill-informed liberals just love. . . and what would be the fun in that??
@facebook-100000548533516:disqus Your blogs are some of the most well written, fact packed comments I have seen on any site I have viewed. Please join us at Marcellus drilling news to help get the facts about fracing out http://marcellusdrilling.com/

You do realize that all those accusations, name-calling, and invective manages to make you sound rather agenda-driven yourself? But I suppose it is appropriate for you, but my having a supposed agenda is out of line.  However if you calm down and actually read what I wrote you’ll see I am not clamoring to exonerate the gas industry but I call out the media for not being more objective and looking into the details of an important subject.

Fox was indeed in error in numerous ways. The fish kill in the film was blamed on natural gas drilling.  That was disputed by the “agenda-driven” NY TIMES!  They pointed to the EPA report blaming the fish kill on runoff from mining in the area, not gas drilling. That report came out before the film.

Did Fox say fracking fluid contains 596 chemicals? Yes. Only one dozen or so are used, so he was in error by only, oh, 580 or so.  Does he say in the film the gas industry is completely exempt from numerous legislations, when they clearly are not? Yes. Hmmmm, almost sounds like “sloppy research and sketchy references”, which was the point of my article. If you are so bothered by my supposed factual errors why then are you not equally outraged at Fox’s same errors?

As for your hatred for Philem McAleer, that is your choice. I did not cite the man as a source, I merely included his video. Accusations of badgering questions aside Fox does say gas was in people’s tap water in the 70s, and he acknowledges people were igniting tap water in the 1930s. That predates fracking, and that is a significant detail. Your choosing to ignore/overlook that detail is revealing itself.

“if you calm down”

I am perfectly calm and delivering a reasoned dissection of your  poorly researched screed. Maybe you are just projecting?

“sound rather agenda-driven yourself?”

Its called self preservation. I live with it everyday. Unlike you, I actually have a dog in this fight and no other choice but to see it through. I didn’t just snatch a subject out of thin air and rely on others outdated work to cobble together an article to claim as my own.

“The fish kill in the film was blamed on natural gas drilling.”

And in the film it was clearly stated that he was relying on citizens observations of illegal dumping. You still cling to a stale out of date article in the “NY TIMES!”  even though the fact of what really happened has proved to be true in more recent articles. 

“Did Fox say fracking fluid contains 596 chemicals?”

Yes, he did.
Did he say that that amount went into each and every well?
No, he didn’t.
However, Dr. Wilma Subra and Dr. Theo Colburn have in fact documented hundreds if not thousands by now of various chemicals used in the stimulation process. My own states records document literally hundreds of chemicals used in various wells and a whopping 35 or more that I am not allowed to know because of “trade secret” exemptions. Wyoming has similar disclosure rules and they’ve reached well over 60 exemptions last time I checked.

“Philem McAleer, …… I merely included his video.”

Ask to see the complete unedited video of the entire exchange. I did and was stonewalled and had my comments deleted by him. Incidentally, I don’t really hate him, I just recognize him for what he is and you interpreted that as hatred.
You seem to put great store in his work as you go on to refer to his highly edited clip a second time in your reply. You also still cling to reports generated by disgraced committee members containing anecdotal information. Have you even read the COGC report?

Your article relies on stale, out of date information while ignoring more thorough up to date information that has been handed to you.

Face it pal, you are in over your head here. You should stick with critiquing films as sitting in a dark theater making notes appears to be what you are qualified for.   

1) I have not referenced any report by any comittee so I’m at a loss as to how I’m clinging to any.
2) I do not put ”great store” in McAleer’s work, I put it in Fox’s own words which dispute his own film. Fox volunteered flamable tap water predating fracking. So how was fracking to blame in the 1970s, let alone 1936? 
3) ”he was relying on citizens observations of illegal dumping”  This despite an EPA report that – while old in your measure – came out just before the film and was stating clearly the algae bloom that killed fish was directly from the mine. Which of the two sounds like a more reasoned source, an environmental comission, or local anecdotes? 
4) He does say directly “Fracking fluid contains 596 chemicals”. Fox made ZERO distinction about the fluid composite, like yourself and myself made about that composite. 
Once again, if my supposed errors are so horrible how come Fox’s are not?

And thank you – for saying we’re pals.

There was no reply button on your last comment so I moved up here.

Contradict yourself much?

#1 You say you don’t cling to reports and then in #3 you cite a report that has since proved to be wrong?
Also the methane in Mike Markhams well is supposedly debunked by a COGC report that is filled with anecdotal information produced by a committee that has since been debunked themselves. Commissioner Kathy Hall resigned in disgrace after stating she “had frac fluid in her mouth” for chrissakes. These people were neither reliable or credible and have since been replaced.

#2 You put it in “Fox’s own words” as referenced through Macleers highly edited exchange. Was there methane in water wells someplace in Colorado that predated hydraulic fracturing? Could be. Is that proof that the methane in Mike Markhams was not related to hydraulic fracturing? No.
Put me on the spot and ask the same question 10 times and then edit my answers and I’m sure you’ll get what you were looking for in the first place.  Also the exchange was based on the COGC report and I’ve already indicated the problems with that.

In reference to #3 I’m going to have to go with local reports as that is what ultimately proved to be true. Apparently the mine shaft had been there for years with no problems…. until it became a dumping ground for drilling fluids.

#4 As far as I’m concerned it contains that many chemicals and more including many we are not allowed to know. I know this to be fact from reading my states records on well stimulation. Do they add up to 596 exactly? I don’t know, I never added them up.
Also at that time there was no disclosure of any kind in any state and no transparency within the industry. He went with what information he had from knowledgeable people. You seem to be clinging to the issue of whats being put in any one hole at one time.
You win that point. Do your victory lap around your desk. Congratulations!

The problem I have with your article is that you rely on old outdated information while steadfastly ignoring new information that was available to you. Had you done the research you would have found everything I’ve told you and could have easily included that in your article. Even when the new information is presented, you still stand by the old information.

At the very least you are guilty of the exact same thing that you wrongly accuse Fox of.

Fox presented what he was being told by people on the ground, living the experience. You think that he should have proved them right or wrong before presenting the information in the film and are alluding that he purposely omitted details that you felt should be included.
 
BTW, Did you catch the end of the film where he states its up to you to draw your own conclusion and decide whether or not to act on it?

In my activism I regularly get confronted by someone that wants to argue
that I’m wrong about a current local event because of some perceived
inaccuracy in Gasland. I’m always quick to point out that Gasland is a
film about peoples experiences. Its not, nor was it ever meant to be a
reference manual for everything that’s wrong with hydraulic fracturing
and natural gas drilling. They seem to think that if they can find that
chink in the armor, they can blow the lid off the whole movement.

That is not going to happen. There are many more problems with the process that go far beyond what was presented in Gasland.

Listen, I grasp your position, and I’m not disputing a bulk of what you have to say. The problem is you are looking well beyond the focus of anything I’ve written to prove your point. You are expecting a comprehensive gas drilling treatise. Sorry, not my intent nor the drive of this web site. I was discussing the facts within a film, and the media connection to it.

Want to know why I ignore current information? It is irrelevant to the scope of the article. If they occur after “Gasland’ released they are irrelevant. You keep referring to “outdated” information, all while defending a film that is older than that info. The NY Times fact-checking came out AFTER the film. You operate from the misapprehension I’m trying to clear gas drillers of all wrongdoing. I’m only asking why the press has not looking into “Gasland” with objectivity.

I’m doing only TWO things with this article. I’m addressing factual errors within the context of a documentary film, and I’m asking why the media has not been more curious of the content as a result. Period. I’m not defending an industry. I’m not calling into question all environmental activism. Any and all number of investigations, documents, articles, et al, that came out in the past year do not apply. Here are my points:

FOX: The energy bill was excempt “from The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, The Spurfund Law, and a dozen other environmental and “Democratic” regulations.”
FACT: Patently untrue. As I explained there are portions of some that were exempted, but the balance of the regulations are in place, as well as state and local regulations. (he also plants Dick Cheney and the Republicans as responsible, failing to explain this law was passed by Congress, and Barack Obama was a YES vote)

FOX: Fracking Fluid contains 596 chemicals.
FACT: As we know it is barely over a dozen. Specifically what those are and at what concentrations is rife for investigating, as I’ve said. But for him to not clarify this, nor to explain fracking fluid is 98% water and sand is one of 2 things: grossly negligent, or intentionally misleading. EITHER of those should qualify him for deeper investigation and/or disqualify him as an expert.

FOX: Blamed the fish kill on gas drilling.
FACT: The EPA contradicted this. Now if the EPA has been proven wrong that is after the fact of “Gasland”. The EPA finding was made during production of the film and Fox should have been aware of it. The EPA stated a new bore hole from the mine caused runoff, leading to the algae bloom. Even if ultimately proven accurate his omission of this while relying on local anecdotes is negligent. 

FOX: Says 3 species of endangered migrating wildlife were killed off by drilling.
FACT: Of those NONE were endangered, and one does not even migrate. The level of their imperilment in the past few years may be in dispute, but that does not exonerate Fox from a blatant error. This should also call into question any of his environmental claims.

FOX: Others have had tap water with gas in it, some in the 1970s, some igniting water as far back as 1936.
FACT: Regardless of the line of questioning, badgering, ect. from McAleer, this acknowledges Fox was aware of gas in tap water and he never included it in his film. Even if the household featured did have gas in the tap as a result of fracking his omission of others with a similar problem for decades prior to fracking is a serious omission. If this does not bother you then that alone explains plenty.

Just ask yourself this question: If my supposed errors in your estimation qualified me to be labeled a “hack”, how is it you are not the least bit bothered by these glaring errors from Josh Fox? And again, these are errors found within a documentary. You can label and lambaste me all you choose, but the fact is Fox is guilty of far worse errors, so what does he become labeled with as a result?

“I’m only asking why the press has not looking into “Gasland” with objectivity.”

Because it was not, nor ever meant to be a reference manual  for everything wrong with hydraulic fracturing. Why someone would be picking at it old and stale criteria is beyond me.

“Want to know why I ignore current information? It is irrelevant to the scope of the article.”

Thanks for admitting it but where have I heard that before? Must have been some Youtube clip somebody put together….

I’ve already been through all your listed points and won’t go through them again if that’s OK with you. Suffice to say that I and others believe you to be completely wrong.

After seeing the film at no time did I kid myself into thinking that each and every word uttered was correct nor did I expect it to be. I recognized that it was a chronicling of peoples experiences of living in a shale gas field. 
I also find it quite interesting that those peoples observations turned out to be amazingly true yet “writers” still churn away at proving already dis-proven points.

Where were you when your points actually had merit? I guess maybe its just that your article is 2 years too late.

See ya when Gasland II hits the screen this summer pal!

(Face palm) You continue to bring in elements that have no bearing at all on my article. At NO TIME did I ever imply this film was a reference manual or a referendum on the gas industry. That is a concept of your construct, and it shows why you are having so much trouble understanding me. I have said to you REPEATEDLY I was not exonerating the industry nor condemning activists. You elect to inject that concept.

I have questioned one and only one element — Josh Fox. You deem that as some sort of affront to your activism, beliefs, or efforts. I can’t change your mindset in that regard. This is not 2 year old info either. The film was nominated for the Oscar one year ago, and the NY Times fact-checking came out less than one year ago. The 2009 EPA finding was mentioned because it came out when Fox was filming to illustrate his electing to ignore it.

His homestead, fracking fluid, wildlife fictions, river water poisoning, flamable tap water, and energy business exemptions are all significant items of dispute, contained within one film. That’s a seriously flawed documentary. Again, if you choose to hold all of that as above questioning then it explains everything.
 You and others can believe I’m wrong, fine. I’ve shown you where Fox is wrong. But somehow I’m a hack and he’s a sainted voice in your estimation. In other words, if the message comes from a side you align with then it is above criticism and investigation. Your close-mindedness, lack of perspective and unwillingness to look into the facts is the embodiment of what I addressed in this piece.

Why does no one address any of the other potential issues by Mr Fox? Possible issues such as:

>The hundreds (?) of truckloads of materials needed for each well. Are these trucks fueled by natural gas as well? Seems like a contradiction if not. Let’s spend more money on petroleum to promote another kind of fossil fuel.

>You mention that the frac fluid is 98% water, but how much water? If there are really 600 truckloads of 8000 gallons each, then 4.8 million gallons of water for each well would yield 96,000 gallons of chemicals for each well. In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that 70 to 140 billion gallons of water are used to fracture 35,000 wells in the United States each year. 
>The effects of pollution from the condensation vents?>The waste water storage pits and their likeliness to seep into the ground.

> I can go on and on, but it seems like a lot of waste is expelled, just to produce a “clean” energy…whether it lights on fire on not.

This from the EPA ‘s “Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturingon Drinking Water Resources”, published in Feb, 2011: ”Hydraulic fracturing may affect the mobility of naturally occurring substances in the subsurface, particularly in the hydrocarbon-containing formation.  These substances, described in Table 5, include formation fluid, gases, trace elements, naturally occurring radioactive material, and organic material.”Table 5 cites:  Mercury, lead, arsenic, Radium, thorium, uranium,  Natural gas (e.g., methane, ethane), carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen, helium,  Organic acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds.HERE IS WHERE IT GETS GOOD:

“Some or all of these substances may find a pathway to USDWs as a result of hydraulic fracturing activities. For example, if fractures extend beyond the target formation and reach aquifers, or if the casing or cement around a wellbore fails under the pressures exerted during hydraulic fracturing, these potential contaminants could migrate into drinking water supplies.  Some of these substances may be liberated from the formation via complex biogeochemical reactions with chemical additives found in hydraulic fracturing fluid (Falk et al., 2006; Long and Angino, 1982).  These reactions are discussed in more detail in Section 6.3.4″”Based on the number of chemicals currently known to be used in hydraulic fracturing operations, EPA anticipates that there are several hundred potential drinking water contaminants.  Therefore, EPA expects to develop a prioritized list of chemicals and, where estimates of toxicity are not otherwise available, to conduct additional testing or quantitative health assessments for certain high-priorityc hemicals.  In the first phase of this work, EPA will conduct an initial screen for known toxicity and human health effects information (including existing toxicity values such as reference doses and cancer slope factors) by searching existing databases.”At this stage, chemicals will be grouped into one of three categories: high priority for chemicals that are potentially of concern, low priority for chemicals that are likely to be of little concern, and unknown priority for chemicals with an unknown level of concern.  These groupings will likely be based on known toxicity or human health effects, reported occurrence levels, and the potential need for metabolism information.”>This was published in 2011 and the EPA is just now “getting around” to identifying SOME of the chemicals known in the process and already acknoledge that it is highly likey for ythe already known ones to contaminte water.Read it here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/D3483AB445AE61418525775900603E79/$File/Draft+Plan+to+Study+the+Potential+Impacts+of+Hydraulic+Fracturing+on+Drinking+Water+Resources-February+2011.pdf