• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 13
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
GasLand
myth:
“What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy  bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries fromthe Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the SafeDrinking Water Act...and about a dozen otherenvironmental regulations.” (6:05)
 Actual truth:
The oil and natural gas industry is regulated
under every singleone of these federal laws
— under provisions of each that arerelevant to its operations.
The 2005 energy bill was supported by nearly three-quarters of theU.S. Senate, including then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. In theU.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supportingthe nal bill.
ON THE PROCESS
GasLand
myth:
“The fracking itself is like a mini-earthquake.… In order to frack, you need some fracking uid — a mix of over 596 chemicals.” (6:50)
 Actual truth:
The fracturing process uses a mixture of uids comprised almostentirely (99.5%) of water and sand. The remaining materials, usedto help deliver the water down the wellbore, are typically found andused around the house. The average fracturing operation utilizesfewer than 12 of these components, according to the Ground WaterProtection Council — not 596.
Over the course of its history, fracturing has not only been used toincrease the ow of oil and natural gas from existing wells, but alsoto access things like water and geothermal energy. It’s even beenused by EPA to clean up Superfund sites.
ON DISCLOSURE
GasLand
myth:
“Fracking chemicals are consideredproprietary.” (1:00:56)
 Actual truth:
The
entire universe of additives used in the fracturing process
isknown to the public and the state agencies that represent them.
Not only do individual states mandate disclosure, the federalgovernment does as well. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandates this information be kept at everywellsite, and made readily available to response and medicalpersonnel in case of an emergency.
ON FLAMMABLE FAUCETS
GasLand
myth:
Methane in the water in Fort Lupton, Colo. saidto be the result of natural gas development.
 Actual truth:
Colorado debunks the claim: “Dissolved methane in well water
appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin
. ...Thereare no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.”(COGCC, 9/30/08)
ON THE LAW
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
Angie Nguyen

I agree with Zachary Murray in calling this a "debunk". But I have a question: "On West Divide," since the bubbling creek water is of biogenic origins, are there other cases of such creeks elsewhere not near an oil well?

reply02 / 13 / 2012
Zachary Murray

Overall, I'm glad people aren't taking the film as straight fact. It's an important issue that needs to be examined closely. This page raises some interesting points, but I believe calling it a debunking would be inaccurate, as few of the counter arguments hold water.

reply01 / 26 / 2011
Zachary Murray

"on West Divide Creek" The first counter argument just seems to indicate the methane was not man made, not that fracturing didn't cause it's release. The second just says the state, an interested party, doesn't know if fracturing caused it or not. My belief is that if there are many places where there is fracturing, then methane in rivers, fracturing might cause methane in rivers. Fair?

reply01 / 26 / 2011
Zachary Murray

"On Dunkard Creek" - The first EPA claim is not a counter argument. chronic exposure just means it didn't happen all at once, but could still be the result of the fracturing. The second comment is stronger, but like the original statement, I'd like to know who determined this and if they were interested parties. Also, doesn't the fact that it was mine drainage make fracturing seem scary too?

reply01 / 26 / 2011
Zachary Murray

"on flammable faucets" - sounds like a bit of he said she said. I think I'd like an investigation from an independent party (i.e. one that does not collect tax revenues from the process) before making any final conclusions. And really, both sides should name their source better (Who in Colorado determined this?)

reply01 / 26 / 2011
Zachary Murray

"on disclosure" - OK, maybe all of this information is available. My guess is that what is proprietary is what chemicals each individual company uses, which I personally would demand to know from whatever company wanted to do this to my land.

reply01 / 26 / 2011
Zachary Murray

"on the law" - the need for the qualifier "under provisions of each that are relevant to its operations" suggests there are parts of the law not considered "relevant" which therefore do not apply to fracturing. Who voted for the law is not a counter argument.

reply01 / 26 / 2011
Zachary Murray

"on the process" If the chemicals are found around the house, it doesn't mean I want to put them in my soil and water. Most of the chemicals in my house are poisonous and say keep away from kids. I'm not sure why the history is supposed to be a counter argument. It's not. It only matters what they do now.

reply01 / 26 / 2011
Show More
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...