PDA

View Full Version : Environment Gasland Director Josh Fox arrested for filming public congressional hearing


banyon
02-01-2012, 07:53 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iv-ZjFrU-Gs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

'Gasland' director Josh Fox after arrest: I've been blacklisted

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/02/120102_josh_fox_arrest_328.jpg


Moments after being released by the Capitol police on Wednesday afternoon, Oscar-nominated director Josh Fox told POLITICO that by arresting him at a committee hearing, Congress made it clear he is persona non grata on Capitol Hill.

"Basically, we were trying to comply with their rules and at every turn we were backed off," Fox said. "Here we are worried, 'Are we going to be blacklisted off the Hill?' and it looks like we already have been."
Continue Reading


Fox was arrested Wednesday morning at a House Science subcommittee hearing on EPA’s investigation into groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyo., potentially caused by hydraulic fracturing. Fox said he was interested in filming the Pavillion hearing because it was a "landmark" case that backed up issues that were reported in "Gasland."

Committee staffers announced to the waiting crowd prior to the hearing that only credentialed media would be allowed to tape the hearing. Fox said that he submitted several formal requests to tape the hearing, but that those requests were denied since his crew did not have Capitol media credentials.

Fox said he got in touch with a Science Committee staffer to see if he could appeal the decision directly to subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.), but that he never got a response, despite being promised one by 8 p.m. on Tuesday. So when he arrived at the hearing, Fox said he walked in and started setting up his tripod and began taping.

Shortly after, he was escorted away in handcuffs by police.

“There were no other broadcast journalists in the room,” Fox said. “We’ve taped public hearings across the U.S. for 3½ years. We’ve taped hundreds. This is public speech and it’s protected — our ability to report on it is protected by the First Amendment. And they came to us and said, ‘You’re in violation of House rules.’ I told them, ‘You’re in violation of the rules of the United States of America, which is the Constitution.”

But Fox acknowledged there was a chance he'd be ejected.

“We wanted to cover the hearing,” Fox said. “We didn’t know what was going to happen. ... We didn’t have a guy in there. Also, I felt there was a threat we would get kicked out. And that’s exactly what happened.”

“When they kick me out, John Boehner’s promise of transparency in government goes out with me,” Fox added. “This is outrageous. I did not expect to be arrested today. I expected to be allowed to film. I did not expect to be walked out of there in handcuffs.”

A Science Committee GOP aide said that he had no knowledge of Fox contacting a majority staffer for permission to film, though he noted working with Democratic staffers on Fox’s request, which he said was ultimately denied.

Committee Republicans pointed to Section 9(j) of the committee rules which requires that television and radio media be accredited by the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Galleries. The galleries do issue temporary passes for journalists who don’t cover Congress full time, and press gallery staffers said that documentarians have gotten temporary passes in the past.


Adding to the confusion were statements from Rep. Brad Miller that an ABC News crew had also been turned away and not allowed to tape the hearing. ABC spokeswoman Julie Townsend said that the network did not have a crew assigned to cover that hearing.

The GOP committee spokesman said the videographer in question told staffers he was hired by Trish Adlesic to film the hearing. Adlesic is a producer of "Gasland."

Fox said he had no knowledge of the ABC impersonation claims, but that his team has hired credentialed journalists in the past to cover hearings where they weren't allowed access. He confirmed that the videographer "Gasland" hired to film today's hearing was turned away and that another "Gasland" editor, Matthew Sanchez, was not allowed to enter the hearing room with his camera.

In the hours after his arrest, the Working Families Party released a petition asking Harris to apologize for his treatment of Fox and the press. By Wednesday afternoon, the petition had 5,207 signees.

Fox was charged with unlawful entry and released from police custody around 3 p.m. He must appear in D.C. Superior Court on Feb. 15.




http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72326.html

alnorth
02-01-2012, 07:57 PM
Good. Didn't read the story, didn't see the context whether the arrest was justified or not, but he should have been arrested just for his documentary alone. (disclaimer: I'm joking)

That was a laughably dishonest documentary.

banyon
02-01-2012, 08:00 PM
Good. Didn't read the story, didn't see the context whether the arrest was justified or not, but he should have been arrested just for his documentary alone. (disclaimer: I'm joking)

That was a laughably dishonest documentary.

I can't remember if I have watched it before, but I was planning on watching it again after seeing this story.

Why do you think it's dishonest?

jspchief
02-01-2012, 08:03 PM
Seems like there's a procedure, and it appears he didn't follow it.

banyon
02-01-2012, 08:08 PM
Seems like there's a procedure, and it appears he didn't follow it.

Being a committee rule, they could've waived it, and it seems like there were a few who wanted to do exactly that. The committee chair though wanted him arrested.

alnorth
02-01-2012, 08:14 PM
I can't remember if I have watched it before, but I was planning on watching it again after seeing this story.

Why do you think it's dishonest?

There is a crucial, very dramatic, and pivotal scene that makes the whole movie, without this scene, the documentary is blah.

The homeowner turns on his water faucet and is able to ignite it with flames coming out of the faucet. Naturally, everyone concludes that the evils of fracking by natural gas companies caused natural gas to seep into his pipeline, to make his home dangerously flammable when he wants water.

Except, thats crap. a thorough investigation was done that concluded that naturally-occuring methane gas, having nothing at all to do with fracking, which occurs far, far too deep in the earth to realistically impact us, was seeping into his well-water and crappy plumbing.

Never mind the facts, they got their money shot, lets go to the edit room and possibly win ourselves an oscar!

(to be fair, you could instead conclude that the state government where he lived was bought off, lying, and shilling for the natural gas company)

banyon
02-01-2012, 08:17 PM
There is a crucial, very dramatic, and pivotal scene that makes the whole movie, without this scene, the documentary is blah.

The homeowner turns on his water faucet and is able to ignite it with flames coming out of the faucet. Naturally, everyone concludes that the evils of fracking by natural gas companies caused natural gas to seep into his pipeline, to make his home dangerously flammable when he wants water.

Except, thats crap. a thorough investigation was done that concluded that naturally-occuring methane gas, having nothing at all to do with fracking, which occurs far, far too deep in the earth to realistically impact us, was seeping into his well-water and crappy plumbing.

Never mind the facts, they got their money shot, lets go to the edit room and possibly win ourselves an oscar!

(to be fair, you could instead conclude that the state government where he lived was bought off, lying, and shilling for the natural gas company)

I've seen that shot.

Could fracking have lead to the release of the methane?

alnorth
02-01-2012, 08:26 PM
I've seen that shot.

Could fracking have lead to the release of the methane?

very doubtful. Fracking occurs pretty far down into the earth, and the pipeline going down is (supposed to be anyway, not defending anyone who cuts corners) highly fortified so natural gas coming up through the drilled hole doesn't escape. The fracked source is too far down to reasonably cause gas leaks away from the drilling site.

not to say this is entirely green, there is a lot of wastewater that has to be dealt with, but gas leaks aren't a real environmental impact to be concerned about. (man-made ponds of toxic water aren't sexy enough, you need freaking flames shooting out of people's faucets to get their attention)

banyon
02-01-2012, 08:32 PM
very doubtful. Fracking occurs pretty far down into the earth, and the pipeline going down is (supposed to be anyway, not defending anyone who cuts corners) highly fortified so natural gas coming up through the drilled hole doesn't escape. The fracked source is too far down to reasonably cause gas leaks away from the drilling site.

not to say this is entirely green, there is a lot of wastewater that has to be dealt with, but gas leaks aren't a real environmental impact to be concerned about. (man-made ponds of toxic water aren't sexy enough, you need freaking flames shooting out of people's faucets to get their attention)

Hmmm. Well I will watch it again with a skeptical eye and let you know.

jiveturkey
02-02-2012, 07:34 AM
very doubtful. Fracking occurs pretty far down into the earth, and the pipeline going down is (supposed to be anyway, not defending anyone who cuts corners) highly fortified so natural gas coming up through the drilled hole doesn't escape. The fracked source is too far down to reasonably cause gas leaks away from the drilling site.

not to say this is entirely green, there is a lot of wastewater that has to be dealt with, but gas leaks aren't a real environmental impact to be concerned about. (man-made ponds of toxic water aren't sexy enough, you need freaking flames shooting out of people's faucets to get their attention)

I thought that the issue was fracking through aquifers caused harmful gases/chemicals to leak into well water.

In most cases they're able to avoid this but occasionally there are issues when they drill near a water source.

alnorth
02-02-2012, 08:16 AM
I thought that the issue was fracking through aquifers caused harmful gases/chemicals to leak into well water.

In most cases they're able to avoid this but occasionally there are issues when they drill near a water source.

Yeah, I might not have been clear. Without defending exceptions where a company may unethically or illegally cut corners, fracking generally occurs too far below the groundwater to impact it.

Radar Chief
02-02-2012, 08:39 AM
There is a crucial, very dramatic, and pivotal scene that makes the whole movie, without this scene, the documentary is blah.

The homeowner turns on his water faucet and is able to ignite it with flames coming out of the faucet. Naturally, everyone concludes that the evils of fracking by natural gas companies caused natural gas to seep into his pipeline, to make his home dangerously flammable when he wants water.

Except, thats crap. a thorough investigation was done that concluded that naturally-occuring methane gas, having nothing at all to do with fracking, which occurs far, far too deep in the earth to realistically impact us, was seeping into his well-water and crappy plumbing.

Never mind the facts, they got their money shot, lets go to the edit room and possibly win ourselves an oscar!

(to be fair, you could instead conclude that the state government where he lived was bought off, lying, and shilling for the natural gas company)

I’m not seeing the problem here. /Michael Moore

jspchief
02-03-2012, 01:31 AM
Being a committee rule, they could've waived it, and it seems like there were a few who wanted to do exactly that. The committee chair though wanted him arrested.

Sure, you can ask for special treatment. But they have a system in place to get temporary credentials, why not take the conventional route and avoid the drama while taking out of the hands of the committee chair?

Unless maybe avoiding the drama defeats your purpose.

mnchiefsguy
02-03-2012, 01:16 PM
It's a public hearing, and as such, there is no reason to forbid anyone from taping it. Does not matter whether the guy film filming it is a crackpot or not.

mnchiefsguy
02-03-2012, 01:18 PM
Sure, you can ask for special treatment. But they have a system in place to get temporary credentials, why not take the conventional route and avoid the drama while taking out of the hands of the committee chair?

Unless maybe avoiding the drama defeats your purpose.

Credentials should not necessary for a public hearing. Congress works for the people, and they should not be allowed to cherry pick who gets to film and who doesn't. If something is that important that is being discussed, then they should hold the session behind closed doors.

Dave Lane
02-03-2012, 01:23 PM
I think the point is they don't want 300 people showing up to film a hearing. He could have hired a accredited film company to do it for him, or get a temporary permit but that wouldn't create outrage now would it? ;)

mnchiefsguy
02-03-2012, 01:26 PM
I think the point is they don't want 300 people showing up to film a hearing. He could have hired a accredited film company to do it for him, or get a temporary permit but that wouldn't create outrage now would it? ;)

Honestly, the filmmaker is a moron for not following the proper channels. The congressional committee is a bunch of morons as well....by arresting him, they bring negative publicity to themselves and make it appear that they don't care about the first amendment. They should have just waived the rule and let the guy film.

ChiTown
02-03-2012, 02:28 PM
Banyon

I am directly involved in shale fracturing markets for gas, gas liquids and oil here in the US. if you have any questions, I can try and answer those for you. Let me know.

mikey23545
02-03-2012, 03:10 PM
Sure, you can ask for special treatment. But they have a system in place to get temporary credentials, why not take the conventional route and avoid the drama while taking out of the hands of the committee chair?

Unless maybe avoiding the drama defeats your purpose.

It's too bad he couldn't have arranged for the police to have carried him out of the Capitol building nailed to a cross...

banyon
02-03-2012, 04:15 PM
Banyon

I am directly involved in shale fracturing markets for gas, gas liquids and oil here in the US. if you have any questions, I can try and answer those for you. Let me know.

I will watch the film and may take you up on that.

RaiderH8r
02-04-2012, 08:34 PM
Being a committee rule, they could've waived it, and it seems like there were a few who wanted to do exactly that. The committee chair though wanted him arrested.

He could have gone to the chair or ranking member ahead of the rule but that isn't in the spirit of gotcha documentary bullshit that Fox and his ilk like to pull. It's not like he was crashing the tri lateral commission FFS. The thing was f'ing webcast for crying out loud.

RaiderH8r
02-04-2012, 08:36 PM
I've seen that shot.

Could fracking have lead to the release of the methane?

Of course fracking leads to the release of methane. That's the point of it. It didn't lead to the release of that methane. Fracking is not a problem. Period. never has been. The physics and geology do not remotely support the claims and allegations of Fox and his ilk.

RaiderH8r
02-04-2012, 08:41 PM
Credentials should not necessary for a public hearing. Congress works for the people, and they should not be allowed to cherry pick who gets to film and who doesn't. If something is that important that is being discussed, then they should hold the session behind closed doors.

It was webcast. The transcript is public record and he can get in but there are steps to go through so that the hearing doesn't become a third world shit show but Fox isn't interested in that, he is interested in dramatic effect. Remember that whenever you watch his crap. HIs goal, his purpose and his "professional" existence is defined and guided by the singular goal of achieving dramatic effect. Any factual information that comes as a result is purely coincidental.

mnchiefsguy
02-04-2012, 09:57 PM
It was webcast. The transcript is public record and he can get in but there are steps to go through so that the hearing doesn't become a third world shit show but Fox isn't interested in that, he is interested in dramatic effect. Remember that whenever you watch his crap. HIs goal, his purpose and his "professional" existence is defined and guided by the singular goal of achieving dramatic effect. Any factual information that comes as a result is purely coincidental.

People being present at the hearing and taping it does not make the hear turn into a third world shit show. Should Fox have followed the proper procedure? Yes. Should the committee have recognized how bad they would look by arresting him, and conclude that by allowing him to tape, they would better enforce the spirit of the first amendment? Yes.

RaiderH8r
02-04-2012, 11:34 PM
People being present at the hearing and taping it does not make the hear turn into a third world shit show. Should Fox have followed the proper procedure? Yes. Should the committee have recognized how bad they would look by arresting him, and conclude that by allowing him to tape, they would better enforce the spirit of the first amendment? Yes.

Have you ever been to a committee hearing on Capitol Hill? There are rules in place for a reason. First, the rooms are small and don't accomodate camera crews very easily. Usually the C-Span/webcast camera in the back of the room is about all that can accomodate. Hot item hearings literally have lines down the hall waiting to get in and people often get referred to the overflow room to watch the hearing as it is...wait for it....webcast. The Code Pink broads used to crash the hearings to do their quick protest and get escorted out thus mucking up the proceedings for their temper tantrum and detracting from the purpose and focus of the hearings. Fox was gate crashing and got called on it. This is exactly what he wanted so in a very real and practical sense his film was perfectly and adequately accomodated. So F him. Fox did nothing right and everything wrong and will still reap the benefit of it.

banyon
02-05-2012, 08:55 AM
It was webcast. The transcript is public record and he can get in but there are steps to go through so that the hearing doesn't become a third world shit show but Fox isn't interested in that, he is interested in dramatic effect. Remember that whenever you watch his crap. HIs goal, his purpose and his "professional" existence is defined and guided by the singular goal of achieving dramatic effect. Any factual information that comes as a result is purely coincidental.

It was? Because I went to C-Span and they didn't have it. Where was the webcast?

RaiderH8r
02-05-2012, 10:16 AM
It was? Because I went to C-Span and they didn't have it. Where was the webcast?

It was webcast live via the subcommitte's website. Most hearings are webcast live via each committee/subcommittee's website.

The archived webcast is at http://science.house.gov/hearing/energy-and-environment-subcommittee-epa-hydraulic-fracturing-research linked on the right side of the page.

This exemplifies a fundamental problem with American politics. The general public has no f'ing clue about the form function of government nor the resources devoted to keeping things public and available let alone their utter ignorance and incompetence when it comes to issues. Combine all of this and you get opportunists like Fox preying on the good hearted intentions and beliefs of the unwashed and ignorant masses in his drive to manipulate opinion through misinformation and this recent portrayal as Fox as persecuted truth seeker when in fact none of his shit holds water.

banyon
02-05-2012, 10:22 AM
It was webcast live via the subcommitte's website. Most hearings are webcast live via each committee/subcommittee's website.

Ok, thanks, I did find it here:

http://science.house.gov/hearing/energy-and-environment-subcommittee-epa-hydraulic-fracturing-research

I am halfway through "gasland" and will watch this afterwards.

RaiderH8r
02-05-2012, 10:26 AM
Ok, thanks, I did find it here:

http://science.house.gov/hearing/energy-and-environment-subcommittee-epa-hydraulic-fracturing-research

I am halfway through "gasland" and will watch this afterwards.

Gasland is awful tripe and an insult to real documentarians working to actually educate through their work.

Somewhere on this site I did a brief summary and take down of the "Halliburton loophole" line. I may track it down at some point and link it but the short story is that the notion that HF is an unregulated shit show is patently and demonstrably false.

Garcia Bronco
02-06-2012, 01:14 PM
Wrongful arrest. They are not allowed to keep anything from the public unless it impacts National Security,

RaiderH8r
02-06-2012, 01:27 PM
Wrongful arrest. They are not allowed to keep anything from the public unless it impacts National Security,

Um. No.

banyon
02-06-2012, 06:14 PM
There is a crucial, very dramatic, and pivotal scene that makes the whole movie, without this scene, the documentary is blah.

The homeowner turns on his water faucet and is able to ignite it with flames coming out of the faucet. Naturally, everyone concludes that the evils of fracking by natural gas companies caused natural gas to seep into his pipeline, to make his home dangerously flammable when he wants water.

Except, thats crap. a thorough investigation was done that concluded that naturally-occuring methane gas, having nothing at all to do with fracking, which occurs far, far too deep in the earth to realistically impact us, was seeping into his well-water and crappy plumbing.

Never mind the facts, they got their money shot, lets go to the edit room and possibly win ourselves an oscar!

(to be fair, you could instead conclude that the state government where he lived was bought off, lying, and shilling for the natural gas company)

Al, gotta confess, I watched the documentary this weekend and I guess it didn't come across as blatantly dishonest. Combined with my viewing of the committee meeting which occurred after Fox's arrest, I think the skepticism I had about the precautions taken by fracturing operators were just underscored.

The so called "money scene" you described didn't just happen with one guy's faucet in the movie, it occurred all over the place with a slew of different families in different states. More importantly, in most cases, the gas company had seemed to eventually take responsibility, so long as that was a low $ responsibility where they could just get them a new water supply (literally shipping it in to them every week). One time in the movie, they got it out of a creek, the same flaming effect.

But the movie wasn't really about just the flames, to me at least, instead of the nontransparent way the companies have guarded their information as trade secrets, and how they've managed to stay exempt fro the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The movie wasn't full of highly data-filled technical specifications, it was admittedly anecdotal. But I thought the anecdotes were worth seeing. Those anecdotal complaints, after all, are usually the way we start to see the patterns of damage so we can study or address them.

As for the state government (it was in PA in the movie), I HIGHLY recommend that you watch the House Committee hearing at:

http://science.house.gov/hearing/energy-and-environment-subcommittee-epa-hydraulic-fracturing-research

You might have to skim past a couple of tedious parts, but when you get to the questions, it gets interesting. The Chair seems interested in playing semantic gotcha games more than the truth, and the WY State rep is clearly just a paid shill. I don't know how anyone can watch that hearing and say, "yup, nothing to be concerned about, just move along, nothing to see, no further study needed."

This is combined with the incident in OK recently where there was a mostly unexplained (and rare) earthquake which brought back the analysis in the 1967 RMA US Army Corps study.

I like natural gas as a bridge fuel, but just like we learned to make safer nuclear reactors after some problems, there might be room for improvement in this industry to protect dangers to drinking water if they are there. We can live without gas. We cannot live without water.

banyon
02-06-2012, 06:15 PM
Gasland is awful tripe and an insult to real documentarians working to actually educate through their work.

Somewhere on this site I did a brief summary and take down of the "Halliburton loophole" line. I may track it down at some point and link it but the short story is that the notion that HF is an unregulated shit show is patently and demonstrably false.

So, you believe it is regulated by the SWDA, even after watching the committee hearing where the industry CEO's agreed it wasn't?

RaiderH8r
02-07-2012, 10:21 AM
So, you believe it is regulated by the SWDA, even after watching the committee hearing where the industry CEO's agreed it wasn't?

When you say "it" I assume you're referring to the practice of well stimulation or hydraulic fracturing and as such the practice is not regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act because EPA over the years made the regulatory determination that the states were best suited and most able to regulate that small part of the well completion cycle. Hydraulic fracturing is a temporal process that is relatively short in nature and usually a frack crew is on and off a drill site within 24 hours. It is not a constant process in the production cycle. The 2005 Energy Policy Act codified the EPA's existing regulatory determination.

However, this broad implication and inference that the entire process of natural gas drilling is somehow exempt from the SDWA is patently and demonstrably false. ONLY the practice of HF is regulated solely by the states, and effectively at that. Once the fluid and produced water come out of the well it is immediately regulated by the SDWA and subject to all the statutes and regulations contained therein. Moreover, that produced water and fluid is subject to all applicable federal codes, regs, and statutes. It is only the short, temporal process of HF over which states have regulatory primacy which makes perfect sense when considered as each state's geology, topography, and myriad other variables make each state somewhat unique and having states determine how best to address geological and geophysical challenges within the well construction process makes perfect sense. The various state geologists (each state has one) and state groundwater regulators (each state has those and they are nationally represented by the Groundwater Protection Council who have also gone on record in support of state primacy for regulating HF) know their state's geology and hydrology better than a disembodied soul in DC. They are on the ground every day with hands on experience with their state and their state's needs.

Let me know if you need anything else. Fox is a crafty manipulator.

RaiderH8r
02-07-2012, 10:27 AM
Al, gotta confess, I watched the documentary this weekend and I guess it didn't come across as blatantly dishonest. Combined with my viewing of the committee meeting which occurred after Fox's arrest, I think the skepticism I had about the precautions taken by fracturing operators were just underscored.

The so called "money scene" you described didn't just happen with one guy's faucet in the movie, it occurred all over the place with a slew of different families in different states. More importantly, in most cases, the gas company had seemed to eventually take responsibility, so long as that was a low $ responsibility where they could just get them a new water supply (literally shipping it in to them every week). One time in the movie, they got it out of a creek, the same flaming effect.

But the movie wasn't really about just the flames, to me at least, instead of the nontransparent way the companies have guarded their information as trade secrets, and how they've managed to stay exempt fro the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The movie wasn't full of highly data-filled technical specifications, it was admittedly anecdotal. But I thought the anecdotes were worth seeing. Those anecdotal complaints, after all, are usually the way we start to see the patterns of damage so we can study or address them.

As for the state government (it was in PA in the movie), I HIGHLY recommend that you watch the House Committee hearing at:

http://science.house.gov/hearing/energy-and-environment-subcommittee-epa-hydraulic-fracturing-research

You might have to skim past a couple of tedious parts, but when you get to the questions, it gets interesting. The Chair seems interested in playing semantic gotcha games more than the truth, and the WY State rep is clearly just a paid shill. I don't know how anyone can watch that hearing and say, "yup, nothing to be concerned about, just move along, nothing to see, no further study needed."

This is combined with the incident in OK recently where there was a mostly unexplained (and rare) earthquake which brought back the analysis in the 1967 RMA US Army Corps study.

I like natural gas as a bridge fuel, but just like we learned to make safer nuclear reactors after some problems, there might be room for improvement in this industry to protect dangers to drinking water if they are there. We can live without gas. We cannot live without water.

The money scene/flaming fauce was proven to be a bunk allegation and the methane was biogenic.

There are certainly above ground incidents (spills, well construction/cement problems etc) that are related to the production of natural gas but none of them NONE of them are related to the very specific physical process of hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore, each of those spills/well construction problems etc are FULLY REGULATED and each of those companies is cited, fined, and held accountable through existing federal and state statutes. Period. Nobody is saying that fossil fuel production has zero impact. The assertion made by Fox is that there is no statutory or regulatory structure with respect to HF or overall production when the fact is HF is regulated. The industry is federally regulated and Fox willfully conflates and presents the temporal process of hydraulic fracturing as if it is the entire well's life cycle when in fact HF is not. HF is a small part of a producing well's lifecycle, and a regulated one at that. All other aspects of the well is regulated by state and federal statute and for Fox to say or imply that it isn't is patently and demonstrably false. Moreover, he has been told and shown this on numerous occasions and either doesn't get it or doesn't care to recognize facts when they are right in front of his face which betrays the lie that he is serving any interest outside of his own with these "documentaries".

ChiTown
02-08-2012, 02:15 PM
The money scene/flaming fauce was proven to be a bunk allegation and the methane was biogenic.

There are certainly above ground incidents (spills, well construction/cement problems etc) that are related to the production of natural gas but none of them NONE of them are related to the very specific physical process of hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore, each of those spills/well construction problems etc are FULLY REGULATED and each of those companies is cited, fined, and held accountable through existing federal and state statutes. Period. Nobody is saying that fossil fuel production has zero impact. The assertion made by Fox is that there is no statutory or regulatory structure with respect to HF or overall production when the fact is HF is regulated. The industry is federally regulated and Fox willfully conflates and presents the temporal process of hydraulic fracturing as if it is the entire well's life cycle when in fact HF is not. HF is a small part of a producing well's lifecycle, and a regulated one at that. All other aspects of the well is regulated by state and federal statute and for Fox to say or imply that it isn't is patently and demonstrably false. Moreover, he has been told and shown this on numerous occasions and either doesn't get it or doesn't care to recognize facts when they are right in front of his face which betrays the lie that he is serving any interest outside of his own with these "documentaries".

Jamie - do you work in the O&G Industry?

RaiderH8r
02-08-2012, 02:17 PM
Jamie - do you work in the O&G Industry?

Jamie?

And yes, I have more than a passing familiarity with the industry.

ChiTown
02-08-2012, 02:17 PM
Jamie?

And yes, I have more than a passing familiarity with the industry.

Sorry, I thought your first name was Jamie. My bad.

RaiderH8r
02-08-2012, 02:24 PM
Sorry, I thought your first name was Jamie. My bad.

It happens. I've been called worse.

banyon
02-08-2012, 05:50 PM
Sorry, I thought your first name was Jamie. My bad.

LOL, that's "Raiderhader".

So much Raider hate, flowing like wine and honey...

banyon
02-08-2012, 05:51 PM
The money scene/flaming fauce was proven to be a bunk allegation and the methane was biogenic.

Where was this proven?

Also: Did you watch the video on the hearing? Is EPA Region 8 also just some nutty kooks who won't listen?

RaiderH8r
02-08-2012, 06:05 PM
Where was this proven?

Also: Did you watch the video on the hearing? Is EPA Region 8 also just some nutty kooks who won't listen?

The Colorado oil and gas commission investigated and concluded the methane to be biogenic. And yes, Region 8 is an ideological beast driven by outcome and not science.

banyon
02-08-2012, 07:09 PM
The Colorado oil and gas commission investigated and concluded the methane to be biogenic. And yes, Region 8 is an ideological beast driven by outcome and not science.

You said the scene in the movie was proven to be bunk. Who did that?

It sounds like you didn't watch the hearing. The industry hacks seemed like the ones splitting hairs in the hearing.

RaiderH8r
02-10-2012, 08:23 AM
You said the scene in the movie was proven to be bunk. Who did that?

It sounds like you didn't watch the hearing. The industry hacks seemed like the ones splitting hairs in the hearing.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, the state regulatory body responsible for oversight of oil and gas development in Colorado. They did the testing and found the methane to be biogenic in origin.

Splitting hairs is what this is all about; particularly when the waters have been so willfully and dutifully muddied by anti-development propogandists. Hydraulic fracturing is not natural gas development. Hydraulic fracturing is a small part of development. Hydraulic fracturing is a regulated process, relegated to the states first by EPA determination then codified in law. The development process is further regulated above ground by all applicable state and federal rules and statutes by all applicable state and federal permitting and oversight bodies including, but not limited to, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Emergency Community Right to Know, Department of Transportation, Department of Interior, state oil and gas boards/commission, EPA, BLM, Forest Service, and probably a few more.

What sounds like splitting hairs is actually educating on the clear lines of distinction that exist but to the untrained ear don't sound that way. I have tried to make it clear for folks but to summarize, HF is regulated by the states by EPA determination then by law. Industry activities are subject to all applicable state and federal laws and statutes governing exploration and production and subject to enforcement by state and federal agents. There is no such thing as the "Halliburton Loophole". It is a blatant mischaracterization of the history and intent of the regulatory determination made by EPA.

People in Wyoming, MT, CO, etc can drill their own water wells. There are shallow natural gas pockets, particularly associated with groundwater in those areas. Individuals are required to apply for permits to drill these wells, often they do not. Individuals should get degassers for their wells to vent gas deposits, both natural gas as well as CO2, which can be in solution before the well is tapped, people usually do not do this. Natural gas usually has produced water associated with it. As long as the well is drawing down water from a formation at a rate less than or equal to that water's replacement they may not run into any natural gas deposits being held in place by that water, if they have indeed hit a natural gas seam. However, if they draw down water at a greater rate then they will produce natural gas. Ta Da! Congrats Uncle Jed, you've got a natural gas well.

banyon
02-12-2012, 10:59 AM
The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, the state regulatory body responsible for oversight of oil and gas development in Colorado. They did the testing and found the methane to be biogenic in origin.

Splitting hairs is what this is all about; particularly when the waters have been so willfully and dutifully muddied by anti-development propogandists. Hydraulic fracturing is not natural gas development. Hydraulic fracturing is a small part of development. Hydraulic fracturing is a regulated process, relegated to the states first by EPA determination then codified in law. The development process is further regulated above ground by all applicable state and federal rules and statutes by all applicable state and federal permitting and oversight bodies including, but not limited to, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Emergency Community Right to Know, Department of Transportation, Department of Interior, state oil and gas boards/commission, EPA, BLM, Forest Service, and probably a few more.

What sounds like splitting hairs is actually educating on the clear lines of distinction that exist but to the untrained ear don't sound that way. I have tried to make it clear for folks but to summarize, HF is regulated by the states by EPA determination then by law. Industry activities are subject to all applicable state and federal laws and statutes governing exploration and production and subject to enforcement by state and federal agents. There is no such thing as the "Halliburton Loophole". It is a blatant mischaracterization of the history and intent of the regulatory determination made by EPA.

People in Wyoming, MT, CO, etc can drill their own water wells. There are shallow natural gas pockets, particularly associated with groundwater in those areas. Individuals are required to apply for permits to drill these wells, often they do not. Individuals should get degassers for their wells to vent gas deposits, both natural gas as well as CO2, which can be in solution before the well is tapped, people usually do not do this. Natural gas usually has produced water associated with it. As long as the well is drawing down water from a formation at a rate less than or equal to that water's replacement they may not run into any natural gas deposits being held in place by that water, if they have indeed hit a natural gas seam. However, if they draw down water at a greater rate then they will produce natural gas. Ta Da! Congrats Uncle Jed, you've got a natural gas well.

I read the report which is viewable here:

http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

I think they make several good criticisms of the film. However in that document they also acknowledge that at least one of the wells was in fact contaminated by fracking activity. The others just "can't be proven", but I'm not sure how much comfort that gives.

I still think you need to watch the hearing though, because the Congresswoman and the industry executive both agree that fracking activities are not covered by the SWDA due to the fact that there has to be a target chemical which is covered by the act and the chemicals aren't disclosed as trade secrets.

Furthermore as part of Cheney's Energy act, there were specific exemptions granted, including the SWDA. You can view those exemptions and laws here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgeW9Alo7tb5dDFwajBQWl8zdUxYbE14X0tSdUl1VVE&hl=en#gid=0

I guess despite the regulatory bickering, and some of the comments you have made which are entirely fair, I still have some concerns and questions about this process.

I mean give me an honest appraisal here. What safeguards do natural gas companies actually take to protect local drinking water? And I don't mean this in a racist way, but here in western KS, my understanding is it's just a couple of truckloads of Mexicans with a couple of sacks of glorified Quickcrete to pour after the well is done. Am I wrong? Do these crews know anything about the water table, geology of the strata, or anything?

RaiderH8r
02-13-2012, 11:37 AM
I read the report which is viewable here:

http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

I think they make several good criticisms of the film. However in that document they also acknowledge that at least one of the wells was in fact contaminated by fracking activity. The others just "can't be proven", but I'm not sure how much comfort that gives.

I still think you need to watch the hearing though, because the Congresswoman and the industry executive both agree that fracking activities are not covered by the SWDA due to the fact that there has to be a target chemical which is covered by the act and the chemicals aren't disclosed as trade secrets.

Furthermore as part of Cheney's Energy act, there were specific exemptions granted, including the SWDA. You can view those exemptions and laws here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgeW9Alo7tb5dDFwajBQWl8zdUxYbE14X0tSdUl1VVE&hl=en#gid=0

I guess despite the regulatory bickering, and some of the comments you have made which are entirely fair, I still have some concerns and questions about this process.

I mean give me an honest appraisal here. What safeguards do natural gas companies actually take to protect local drinking water? And I don't mean this in a racist way, but here in western KS, my understanding is it's just a couple of truckloads of Mexicans with a couple of sacks of glorified Quickcrete to pour after the well is done. Am I wrong? Do these crews know anything about the water table, geology of the strata, or anything?

I have said, repeatedly, that the process of HF is not covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act. SDWA is a federal statute and, as it currently stands, the EPA regulatory determination, which was later codified in EPACT 2005, gave primacy to the states when it came to regulating HF. Period.

I think you're confused as to what constitutes HF and what constitutes production. HF is a small, very temporal, very precise part of the overall production life cycle of a well. All other aspects of the well, water management, waste disposal, etc. are covered by all applicable state and federal statutes, including the SDWA. Produced water and its disposal, frac water and its treatment are covered under the SDWA. I can give you the section and code if you like. Fox has willfully, purposefully and effectively conflated the very precise and temporary process of hydraulic fracturing and turned it to mean the well's lifecycle of production and that is where almost every last iota of confusion in this debate stems.

Once people understand that a well's lifecycle is subject to the SDWA and all other state and federal statutes and the part, the small PART of that lifecycle called well stimulation or hydraulic fracturing, is regulated by the states as part of an overall regulatory determination made by EPA many years ago because EPA recognized that they were ill-equipped to handle the regulation and that the states, who have regulated HF as part of their overall well permitting programs, have the processes, procedures, knowledge and expertise in place to effectively regulate that PART of the process folks usually come around to see that there isn't nearly as much here as they have been led to believe.