Gasland Gasbag

As "inconvenient" as the oil sands.

The oil companies dig to clean up the earths surface and make a profit, the activists and MSM just dig a deeper hole.

I've been debating this with a friend and that link showed up yesterday just in time. Game Changer!

Let's grant your premise for a moment that there are plenty of examples of water being set on fire. I'd like to point out though that you are making an assumption that the fracking is the source of the flammable water. Am I to believe that all of this gas stored underground never leaked into water supplies before fracking occurred? That the gas is always segregated from headwaters and aquifers somehow? I find that doubtful.
> (drafting break)
Oh, and what awesome timing..... that's exactly the case- there are reports of being able to light the water yeeeears ago before fracking.
(link followed)

I fail to see the relevance of this so called director. Facts and truth are irrelevant to the cause.

There is inherent cowardice in the name of that site. It should be corrected to: "Evil and Wrong". People who knowingly lie are consciously evil. Faith-based imperatives such as environmental pantheism do not excuse the sin.

Save this for his tomb stone . . .

"this was not included in Gasland because it was not relevant."

So green of him, so Al Gore inspired, so Michael Mannish and Phil Joenesish, so IPCC "we only use peer reviewed reports" ish.

Can't wait to see David "Dr. Fruit Fly" Suzuki get his couple of free hours on CBC to flog the film, to tell George Stombobumbodumbo we are all gonna die and have Peter Mansbridge interview for 20 minutes and never ask him about the historical perspective.

Because nobody lies like an environmentalist.

Hypocrisy is a basic concept in environmentalism.

Ahh the left - never let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Or, never let the truth get in the way of an agenda. These people have learned well from their Marxist ideologues.

"Truth is not a defence"

This guy is slated to replace Cass Sunstein one day, or at the very least become the Commissioner of the CHRC.

He absolutely should include all the facts in his story, but that doesn't make what he claims any less true. This exact thing happened at my friends place last year. He had a perfectly good well that was drilled in the 60's,never had gas in it before last summer. After the frac crew came to frac a new well on the adjacent quarter section by his yard, he now has gas in his water. Fortunately for him, the owners of the gas well are paying for him to drill a new water well.

I knew a girl in college thirty years ago who lived on a farm, and told me then that they could light a fire on their water faucet. There is a large gas production base in the area now, but there wasn't then

Pseudo-science like Gasland is why I get irritated when people insist that the right ignores fact-based or evidence-based science. The problem is not with science itself but the way it is being used and abused. Agenda driven scientists and activist with reports full of omissions, half-truths and data suppression/manipulation has corrupted science to the point that you are foolish *not* to question it. The result: people fall back on ideology. The "conclusions" are drawn not from understanding the science but personal bias.

For instance, my reflex is to assume that the opposition to fracking is just more anti-development, pro-renewable BS. But the other day the Daily Mail has a report linking fracking to small earthquakes. A comment below the article explained that the geology of the area might make it more susceptible to disruption and, therefore, unsuitable for fracking. This might be true but the hysteria and demonizing of fossil fuels overpowers the saner messages of concern.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393033/Man-earthquake-strikes-Blackpool--consequences-severe-UKs-gas-drilling-industry.html

Pretty sure I posted this once or tiwce here before, but here is a minute by minute rebuttal of the Gasland propaganda film:

http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

The enviros are terrified of fracking - it promises dirt-cheap, essentially limitless gas supplies (and coming very soon a similar phenomenon with oil...) that are domestically sourced. Gas is practically pollution-free even compared to wind and solar - thus making them even more hopelessly uneconomic than they already are.

Gasland is just the beginning of the smear campaign. Unfortunately for them, the NG lobby and american business in general have the facts on their side and they know how to lobby in washington even better than they do...

As kids we loved going to visit our uncle's farm. He could hold a lit match beside the kitchen faucet and when he turned the water on there would be bang and then some blue flame. He said most of his neighbours could do the same trick.

Here is a better example of this scientific trend:

Climate craziness of the week: “ethics requires” linking tornadoes to climate change

Because of the complexity of the climate system and the need to predict atmospheric conditions at specific locations to be able to predict future tornado activity, it is unlikely that strong proof about the causal connection will emerge in the near future. Compelling proof would require a much better understanding of how the timing and magnitude of local atmospheric conditions will change than our current modeling capability allows or decades of experience with tornado formation to be able to establish credible trend data...

For this reason, environmental decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty must be understood to raise a mixture of ethical and scientific questions. Yet, the scientific skeptics on global warming or those denying connections between tornadoes and climate change often speak as if it is irrational to talk about duties to reduce greenhouse gases until science is capable of proving with high levels of certainty what actual damages will be.

So, basically, we know we don't know if man-made climate change is responsible but it is irresponsible not to link every natural disaster or natural occurrence on increased CO2.

This is the New 21st State of Science.

Link for above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/01/climate-craziness-of-the-week-ethics-requires-linking-tornadoes-to-climate-change/

I'm not going to say that all Oil Companies are absolute angels but what seems clear is that Josh Fox is a liberal arts major now posing as a scientific expert. I've seen his type over the years working at the David Suzuki Foundation. Such folks wouldn't know the "scientific method" if it kicked them in the a$$. So instead, they just rehearse a series of really cool sounding talking points and ... off they go.

Quite simply, gas in the water at the films location in 1936 and still in 1976 is entirely relevant. In fact, pre-existence of gas makes the claim of Director Fox' film ridiculous. Just another piece of propaganda from a yellow journalist. A turd.

People are catching on to the distortions and outright lying. We remember the polar bear extinction scam and the lie that Himalayan glaciers will be melted by 2035. How about that swine flu pandemic? The Quebec Government just had to back down on 2-4D and eat crow. DDT?
The unintended consequence is that it will be increasingly difficult to get people to react to real situations.

OK, my last point from an applied science point of view: How freaking difficult is it to do pre and post testing of homeowners wells and ground water test wells? This is standard procedure for other industrial developments such as mining, utlities, etc. where hundred of wells get tested periodically for the duration of the operation.

(Apologies if this was in the documentary, I haven't watched it)

For the love of God, I have seen generic copies of that douche bag 10000 times in my life, each time more illogical and overconfident than the last.

I had a friend 20 years ago whose whole house blew up one night as they were sleeping (totalled). Gas had migrated up through natural fractures below the foundation (apparently). They survived without injuries and had a beautiful house 3x the value rebuilt elsewhere through insurance and the local oil company.

Nearest well was a mile away and had never been fraced.

I am sure this filmaker/eco-jihadist is full of it, but is there a possibility that the fracking chemical compounds could work their way up and that they could be dangerous? It wouldn't be hard to find out what's in the water if they just used mass spec. Further, they could use the (admmittedly over-sensitive) Ames test to find if the well water was actually carcinogenic.

@LC Bennett, 2:14

Here in Alberta, it's standard operating procedure for water wells to be tested before even so much as a seismic survey is commenced. Well-owners get it done, free of charge, paid for by the operator of the project in question. I have had it done at least 3 times now.

And I have had gas in my water myself. Happened when I installed a new water heater. Running the (hot only) water tap would release burst of combustible gas. I was able to get flames at the tap. Probably due to a bloom of anaerobic bacteria in the well water. Shock chlorination was recommended, but the gas outbreak vanished on its own accord.

It's very unlikely that a frac job on a deep horizontal well could affect local aquifers, as the zone being frac'ed is so much deeper than the ground water. One possible means would be if the casing cement job were bad, but if the people in charge are doing their jobs properly, a bad cement job shouldn't happen.

You know, if I were to get a large amount of sweet gas in my well water, I wouldn't whine about it. I'd rig up a poor-boy degasser, collect the gas, and use it for heat. Free gas! What's not to like?

gordinkneehill >

"a bad cement job shouldn't happen"

They happen all the time, more so decades ago of course, but those are the ones to worry about.

Big difference is in the mom & pop oil companies verses the majors. It reverts back to who they sub-contract for service companies, again using the mom & pop verses the majors.

The Regulatory “Board” in Alberta is far more stringent with inspections, reporting, and documenting than it used to be +20 years ago.

gordinkneehill

That is why it is odd that there does not seem to have been any testing - it is in the companies own interest to be able to prove their innocence and reduce liability (even if it isn't required by law).

O/T- aquifers are funny things. I remember three sample wells drilled to different depths within 15 ft of each other with completely different water in appearance and composition. It is an interesting area of study (for boring science-y types).

lots of gas in the shallow acquifers Stettler, Donalda, likely down through Kneehill/Three Hills.
been that way since the glaciers gave the coal strata the big squeeze.

There is a "Battlestar Galactica" reference that I will not make now.

Do these people really think that NO ONE will ever investigate their claims?

Its plain we have fools who would se the golden goose cooked for Socialist Dogma. Plus the Eastern factor of Supremecy must never be left out. It would be a coup to shut us down so they can keep control by making us poverty stricken. No matter they would destroy the East as well.
JMO

Revnant Dream and Ken (Kulak) have isolated the 'problem"; it is not about the gas in water, it is not about facts - it is about an agenda driven pile up of all facets in our lives that ensure that the Free nations will remain free. Unca Mo, georgie porgie, the groupies in the ME, Russia, Europia, the White House, the Dipper/Liberano/Blochead Troika in Canada.....all want all of us reduced to rags and poverty so that we will give them all of our talents and production for the price of a few morsels of food for our families. They want us begging for our own and our families lives and compromising every value that we ever held dear. Economic starvation is a powerful tool.

A blog you folks may find interesting: http://depletedcranium.com/

It deals primarily with examining energy production using scientific analysis. I've found linking articles in it extremely effective when dealing with environmentalist rhetoric.

@Gord Tulk
Thank you for that link, that was EXACTLY what I needed to continue my discussion.

Hey Ryan, what district is your friend's place in?

Many areas in the Prairies have had gas dissolved in groundwater, especially where there is coal that isn't buried too deeply. In parts of the US where recent shale gas drilling and frac'ing activity has occurred, this might be the case, too; however, I'm not familiar with the details of the local geology there.

Definitely, seismic companies routinely assess wells and water sources before shooting, to establish a baseline and as a public service. They also try to keep their lines far from existing water wells. It may be required in some jurisdictions, but really is a form of preventative maintenance. I think the incidence of adversely affected wells is reduced just by taking a sample before the operation starts.

If operators of wells that use hydraulic frac'ing haven't started doing this, it's likely because most fracs are done on rock that is 1000 metres or more deep, and the water wells are generally 100 metres or less deep, with multiple layers of impermeable rock in between. I think this situation is less likely to affect domestic water wells than seismic activity that may be setting off the charges around the same depth as the water wells.

Josh Fox using scenes that show combustible gas in water in an anti-gas industry film without mentioning the history shows he is deliberately trying to mislead, and the fact that this occurred in some of those wells before hydraulic frac'ing was invented is entirely relevant.

Important update from Ann McElhinney & Phelim McAleer.