Slashdot Mirror

Having just watched Gasland II, I don't necessarily trust the government's pronouncements either. According to that documentary (which is a bit propagandistic to be honest)

Terrible, terrible source. That movie is loaded with so many inconsistencies and so many flat-out lies that I wouldn't know what is a fact, what is an exaggeration, and what is plainly made up. Did you know that, for instance, the hose in Gasland 2 that was on fire was attached directly to a gas vent rather than a water supply? http://energyindepth.org/national/the-continuing-fraud-of-gasland/

Quite obviously and openly so, but at least their facts check out. Just like every other source I've seen on both sides of the issue, there's missing data, but everybody jumps to their preferred conclusion.

I've seen it, and it also lacks base-line data for many of its statements. The majority of the "facts" presented are exaggerated at best, and often outright wrong.

No, it wasn’t naturally occurring. People who lived by fracked wells had FINE water. Post fracking, animals lost hair and died, the local EPA told them to stop drinking water and their water LIGHTS ON FIRE!!. SO SOMEHOW the “component chemicals’ of Haliburtons frack mixture shows up in water sources??? You have a agenda to fool the public. Truth tells the opposite of what you write. YOu're just another energy lobbyist.

I wish I was an energy lobbyist, could use the money, just a mild mannered physicist. You don't have to take what I said, look here;

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

quoted passage;

From GASLAND; “In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.”

* No record of the investigation described by Fox exists, so EID reached out to Dr. Dave Bolin, deputy director of Alabama’s State Oil & Gas Board and the man who heads up oversight of hydraulic fracturing in that state. In an email, he said he had “no recollection” of such an investigation taking place.

* That said, it’s possible that Fox is referring to EPA’s study of the McMillian well in Alabama, which spanned several years in the early- to mid-1990s. In 1989, Alabama regulators conducted four separate water quality tests on the McMillian well. The results indicated no water quality problems existed. In 1990, EPA conducted its own water quality tests, and found nothing.

* In a letter sent in 1995, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently, President Obama’s top energy and environmental policy advisor) characterized EPA’s involvement with the McMillian case in the following way: “Repeated testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the drinking water well which was the subject of this petition [McMillian] failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for drinking water quality, and no constituents exceeding drinking water standards were detected.”

* For information on what actually did happen in Alabama during this time, and how it’s relevant to the current conversation about the Safe Drinking Water Act, please download the fact sheet produced last year by the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama.

there's a few documentaries out there to raise awareness already, but they seem to gather very little attention.

Gasland is already under question for many of its "facts". Instead of documentaries we could look at studies by the EPA that say there is no impact. Of course, that study was questioned by a whistleblower, so maybe it isn't reliable either.

In short, I've read at least 50 comments in this thread stating with great certainty that ground water pollution is occurring from fracking, TFA says earthquakes are likely caused by fracking, yet there aren't any studies to support any claims for or against those statements. How 'bout we all wait for the EPA lifecycle study to do its thing and then we can have an informed discussion instead of a /. discussion?

Seems questionable