Chuck Hoadley posted on 1/12/2012 1:03:00 PM
I googled "commonwealth foundation" and found it is a UK organizaiton. Why would they comment on natural gas resources in the US??? Perhaps it's a $$$ issue???

Chuck Hoadley posted on 1/12/2012 12:58:00 PM
The parent list of myths this article purports continue to avoid the issue: Why are the gas companies exempt from the Clean Water Act? And, why are they fighting compliance with the Clean Water Act?

Are the depictions of contaminated streams and air quality issues false?

Is this debunking web site funded by gas companies?

JRH posted on 9/30/2011 10:01:00 PM
Great movie. Well, scary and disturbing.

Sam posted on 4/25/2011 2:05:00 PM
SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground
injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by
well injection; and
‘‘(B) excludes—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for
purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping
agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic
fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal
production activities.

Sam posted on 4/25/2011 2:02:00 PM
Except from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It clearly indicates that hydraulic fracturing is except from the SWDA.

(42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground
injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by
well injection; and
‘‘(B) excludes—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for
purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping
agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic
fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal
production activities.’’

Bullshit Repellant posted on 3/10/2011 12:52:00 AM
You are supposed to get the real answer/science before you do all the extraction and put lives in harm's way. That is called 'due diligence'. That we are hearing you goons call for science now that concerns have been raised about the thousands of extraction sites already in place (and thousands more on the way) shows just how disingenuous and fraudulent (and paid for) your whole message is.

Keep up the pressure, Josh.

Tote McGoats posted on 2/8/2011 3:59:00 PM
I have yet to have seen this film, but have heard plenty buzz about what is portrayed in the film. The sad thing to me about most documentaries is that they rely too much on human emotion and often ignore science. There still hasn’t been any scientific proof that a hydraulic frac contaminated a viable groundwater source, yet Gasland shows people with jars of bad water and water faucets that light on fire (scenes from the trailer) and insinuate that it is a no-brainer that the oil and gas guys are to blame. How much actual research went into the hydrogeology in these areas to ensure that the contamination couldn’t be coming from somewhere else? Believe it or not, some people’s drinking water zones could be bad to begin with and also could contain natural gas. By no means am I saying that a frac is 100% environmentally-safe, I just think more science should be applied to an issue before pointing fingers. Think about it: Now if someone’s well water goes bad for whatever reason and they live near an oil and gas field, guess who will automatically shoulder the blame? Is that fair? I’m not a huge fan of the industry myself, but it strikes me as extremely hypocritical of the harsh attitude that some direct at that industry when it was a huge player in making our nation as successful as it is today. To me, the solution calls for performing some real science on this issue. Secure some grant funding from the Department of Energy (or whomever) and let some of our brightest college students tackle the question. Let’s get the real answer before hitting the panic button. Educate our children on the importance of conservation and recycling. Tell them where plastic and tires come from. Otherwise, it’s all just a losing battle.

Josh Fox posted on 1/11/2011 6:22:00 PM
Readers should take a look at "AFFIRMING GASAND" and decide for themselves.

Energy-In-Depth is trying to argue that Fracking was never regulated under SDWA which is false. The whole story is there to read at "Affirming GASLAND" which details the specific court cases that ruled that fracking should not be exempt under SDWA.

The fact remains that fracking is currently EXEMPT from the Safe Drinking Water act, and it should not be. SDWA is our federal law that regulates underground injection of toxins. Since Fracking injects toxins underground, it should be regulated under SDWA.

There is only one provision under which companies would not be exempt, which is if they were using diesel to frack. They've broken that law and admitted it. The "Halliburton Loophole" states explicitly that fracking should be regulated under SDWA if fracking companies are using diesel fuel to frack. But even in this case, gas companies cannot be trusted- in the recent congressional probe several fracking companies admitted to breaking the law and using diesel to frack. Reported in the NY Times:

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/19/19greenwire-two-oil-field-companies-acknowledge-fracking-w-90863.html" Target="_BLANK">http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/19/19greenwire-two-oil-field-companies-acknowledge-fracking-w-90863.html</a>

All this and more at "Affirming GASLAND"

<a href="http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf" Target="_BLANK">http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf</a>

Sincerely,
Josh Fox
Director, GASLAND

p.s. Don't believe the hype

Josh Fox posted on 1/11/2011 6:22:00 PM
Readers should take a look at "AFFIRMING GASAND" and decide for themselves.

Energy-In-Depth is trying to argue that Fracking was never regulated under SDWA which is false. The whole story is there to read at "Affirming GASLAND" which details the specific court cases that ruled that fracking should not be exempt under SDWA.

The fact remains that fracking is currently EXEMPT from the Safe Drinking Water act, and it should not be. SDWA is our federal law that regulates underground injection of toxins. Since Fracking injects toxins underground, it should be regulated under SDWA.

There is only one provision under which companies would not be exempt, which is if they were using diesel to frack. They've broken that law and admitted it. The "Halliburton Loophole" states explicitly that fracking should be regulated under SDWA if fracking companies are using diesel fuel to frack. But even in this case, gas companies cannot be trusted- in the recent congressional probe several fracking companies admitted to breaking the law and using diesel to frack. Reported in the NY Times:

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/19/19greenwire-two-oil-field-companies-acknowledge-fracking-w-90863.html" Target="_BLANK">http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/19/19greenwire-two-oil-field-companies-acknowledge-fracking-w-90863.html</a>

All this and more at "Affirming GASLAND"

<a href="http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf" Target="_BLANK">http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf</a>

Sincerely,
Josh Fox
Director, GASLAND

p.s. Don't believe the hype

Elizabeth Stelle posted on 1/11/2011 4:10:00 PM
Affirming Gasland is a poor attempt to discredit the films critics. In many cases, the rebuttals don't even address the heart of the argument.

For example, Energy In Depth states that the Energy Policy Act of 2005, with explicit language to exclude Hydraulic Fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), was not rammed through by Vice President Cheney because it garnered support from leading Democrats in the House and Senate. The rebuttal describes how Dick Cheney failed to add specific language exempting Fracturing from SDWA in 2003, but it was later added by Congressmen from Oklahoma and Texas. This proves Energy in Depth's point that it was not rammed through Congress.

While many of the criticisms of Gasland are short and sweet, providing more background research does not fix the misinformation found in the film.

Total Records: 32