Knock, knock. Who’s there? It’s the “landman,” offering quick cash to extract natural gas on your property using a technique called hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking.” Please take a look at this colorful brochure.
It’s a scene that has played out above gas-rich shale formations across the United States. Long before the environmental and public health risks of fracking attracted widespread media attention, thousands signed over their land, a decision some are trying to take back. In the last year, the farmlands of upstate New York have been a particular hotbed for debate.
The state’s de facto ban on fracking, implemented in 2008, has curtailed drilling while the Department of Environmental Conservation researches fracking’s pros and cons. Arguments, and coverage, have intensified as the department has moved closer to a decision, recently inviting public input on the proposed regulations.
For the startup news website Innovation Trail, the timing was right to make fracking a primary focus in its reporting. The site, a collaboration between five upstate public radio stations, launched in 2010, just as the subject was taking off in the New York media. Rachel Ward, Innovation Trail’s editor, says its mission is to cover emerging local industries like biotech, information technology, and energy. One of the site’s first energy stories informed readers that it was “gearing up to do some reporting about the macro and microeconomic effects of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale.” The rest was history.
“We didn’t realize how much we were going to wind up covering fracking,” says Ward. “But we quickly understood how important of an issue it was and how much people care about it.”
Hydraulic fracturing uses a combination of sand, chemicals, and water to break up rock, releasing the natural gas inside. It promises jobs for some and a payday for landowners (often struggling farmers). But opponents cite the alleged environmental fallout: contaminated water, which has been confirmed in parts of Pennsylvania and upstate New York where the method has been used.
The fracking story is fraught with legalities and emotion. The New York Times reported in September that at least 400 New York leaseholders are suing the gas companies they signed with. The reasons landowners are trying to get these leases nullified vary. Some want to renegotiate for more money, some say they changed their minds when they learned more about the risks, and others say they were misled by charming “land men” and assurances about fracking’s safety. [Update: The New York Times published a long review of the activities of landmen nationwide in a front page article published November 2 entitled, “Learning Too Late of Perils in Gas Well Leases.”]
Why were people caught so off-guard? A review of New York media news archives using the search tool LexisNexis shows little coverage of hydraulic fracturing in the state prior to late 2008 and early 2009. Coverage picked up in 2010, when smaller state newspapers started covering the basic arguments for and against the process. But the practical, news-you-can-use about applicable regulations and contract negotiations wasn’t there when prospectors and landowners were drawing up leases.
Take, for example, the Oneida Daily Dispatch, which published two stories about fracking in 2009, both from the Associated Press. One focused on a Pennsylvania company that was forced to stop drilling, the other about New York issuing gas drilling rules, but there was no local focus. At Binghamton’s Press & Sun-Bulletin, six stories ran in 2008, three of which were editorials. At the Star Gazette in Elmira, New York, there were three mentions of hydraulic fracturing at the tail end of 2008. Auburn’s The Citizen ran nine stories about fracking between 2008 and 2010, five were from the AP, and three written by its staff. Likewise, fracking coverage flowed out at a trickle in 2008 at the Ithaca Journal, Plattsburgh’s Press-Republican, and Geneva’s Finger Lakes Times, until editors opened the tap in 2010.

This has got to be the most misleading CJR article I have ever seen.
What the "watchdog" claims: Hydraulic fracturing uses a combination of sand, chemicals, and water to break up rock, releasing the natural gas inside. It promises jobs for some and a payday for landowners (often struggling farmers). But opponents cite the alleged environmental fallout: contaminated water, which has been confirmed in parts of Pennsylvania and upstate New York where the method has been used.
What the study actually says: "What the study did not find is evidence that hydraulic fracturing fluid or flowback waste is getting into drinking water."
The FACT of the matter is that the Duke study found METHANE contamination in some wells near gas wells.. And no evidence that fracking had anything to do with it. And no conclusive evidence that the drilling caused it.
But hey! Why let the mere facts get in the way of another CJR crack dream, right?
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 1 Dec 2011 at 10:44 PM
[But hey! Why let the mere facts get in the way of another CJR crack dream, right? #1 Posted by padikiller on Thu 1 Dec 2011 at 10:44 PM].
I object in the strongest possible terms to your cowardly attack on this reporter. It is just like you to verbally assault a female reporter from under cover of a fabricated but highly suggestive name. Why do you have such a fatal attraction to "-killer"?
There is no point in saying: "It is just another joke," because your vicious propensities are patent. You mean what you are saying. You want us to believe, despite the fact that there is no evidence, that this reporter is on crack.
Anyone who has discussions with you at this site is facilitating your harassment of women reporters.
You clearly are shameless. You are a coward who would assault a woman under cover of darkness. For shame. Go away. "Nighttime maniac" is not a valid profession. You disgust me.
#2 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 1 Dec 2011 at 11:32 PM
Ooo. Missed this on the first go around.
" And no evidence that fracking had anything to do with it. And no conclusive evidence that the drilling caused it."
Wrong again Padi. The duke study, discussed in comments here does show through isotopic analysis that the methane was not the type that naturally occurs in ground water wells.
Furthermore, you have this:
http://www.propublica.org/article/company-backs-out-of-45-million-deal-to-buy-troubled-wyoming-gas-field
This was public service message from thimbles incorporated.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 02:46 PM
Time to toll The Reality Bell yet again:
The Duke study found methane (and NOT fracking fluid) in wells near drilling sites and hypothesizes that the most likely cause IF the methane came from drilling operations (a conclusion that the Duke study does not reach) is faulty well casing - nothing to with fracking (as compared to standard drilling, which also uses casing), and the FACT is that the study found NO contamination of fracking fluid in drinking water... PERIOD.
Read this little slice of R E A L I T Y until your lips stop moving and maybe it will sink in:
THE DUKE STUDY DID NOT FIND FRACKING FLUID CONTAMINATION.
THE DUKE STUDY DID NOT FIND FRACKING FLUID CONTAMINATION.
THE DUKE STUDY DID NOT FIND FRACKING FLUID CONTAMINATION.
THE DUKE STUDY DID NOT FIND FRACKING FLUID CONTAMINATION.
THE DUKE STUDY DID NOT FIND FRACKING FLUID CONTAMINATION.
Sorry, but that's just the reality.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 03:45 PM
Boy, somebody is taking this all a little personally.
It's too bad. If you had only repeated yourself a couple of more times in all caps, you might have convinced me.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 04:48 PM
Padi .. dont bother with Thimbles .. he's so mired by his “motivated reasoning” that all the science (PRAISE BE ITS NAME!!!) in the world wont stop him from clinging to his cacophony of sciency pseudo-evidence ranging from shod-diddly-oddy investigative journalism to 30 year old industrial accidents of minimal relevance with conflicting data.
I sort of feel sorry for him.
#6 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 04:58 PM
Padi shouldn't you be foreclosing on some widowed, fixed-income octogenarian right now instead of wasting those office hours on CJR?
#7 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 05:00 PM
And it's a pity that the frack discussion had to happen here but, according to some EPA investigators, one of the reasons why frack fluid contamination might be reported less often than it occurs is due to the sealed settlements the extraction companies enter into with their distressed and ill clients.
And yeah, I love the Calvinball routine where we get to play "fracking doesn't cause contamination, it's all the stuff around fracking wot did it! Fracking doesn't contaminate!"
It's like claiming, "I didn't murder my wife! I had her murdered! You sir are spreading libelous slander!" Suuuure frack-boys. Suuuure.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 05:02 PM
Thimbles spins up the turbines on the Chittum 5000 Black Helicopters into Full Whisper Mode: And it's a pity that the frack discussion had to happen here but, according to some [unnamed, unspecified] EPA investigators, one [of some unspecified number] of the reasons why frack fluid contamination might[as in Space Aliens "might" invade Earth tomorrow] be reported less often than it occurs [which is never, or almost never] is due to the [unspecified] sealed settlements the [unspecified] extraction companies enter into with their [unnamed] distressed and ill clients ["distressed" in some unspecified manner and suffering from unspecified "illnesses"].
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 06:12 PM
Well if it isn't my biggest follower. How's it going, wiz?
"in the world wont stop him from clinging to his cacophony of sciency pseudo-evidence ranging from shod-diddly-oddy investigative journalism"
Ya know, I kinda schooled you on your last attempt at using a National Review hack to discredit a propublica journalist leaving you with only the supposed email conversation between Wyoming ground water regulator, Mark Thiesse, and said hack as your path of viable attack, which you've spread all over the net on many a webpage to do with fracking (aren't you a good little worker ant).
And how is that Wyoming water doing anyways?
Mark Theisse wouldn't know:
http://www.propublica.org/article/hydrofracked-one-mans-mystery-leads-to-a-backlash-against-natural-gas-drill/single
"Wyoming state officials, including Mark Thiesse, then the West District groundwater supervisor for the Department of Environmental Quality, told him they didn’t have the inspectors or money to conduct a scientific analysis. “I don’t know how many times Thiesse told me ‘we don’t have a smoking gun and we don’t have any money, so what do you want us to do?’ ” Meeks said.
Thiesse, who has since moved to a different part of the DEQ, said he tested Meeks’ well five times. “We have not found hydrocarbons. We have not found fracking chemicals. We have found nothing out of the ordinary. So it’s pretty circumstantial.”"
The EPA seemed to have better luck:
"With the room quiet and tense, Luke Chavez, the EPA Superfund investigator, started off tentatively. He was shy and non-committal. But he proceeded to make headlines.
Of the 39 water samples his team had taken from a smattering of properties around Pavillion, Chavez said 11 were contaminated with chemicals, including some with strong ties to hydraulic fracturing. The EPA found arsenic, methane gas, diesel-fuel-like compounds and metals including copper and vanadium. Of particular concern were compounds called adamantanes — a natural hydrocarbon found in gas — and an obscure chemical called 2-butoxyethanol phosphate. 2-BEp is a compound closely related to 2-BE, a substance known to be used in hydraulic fracturing solutions, and that is known to cause reproductive problems in animals. It was a chief suspect when Colorado regulators investigated the well explosion in Silt."
I'm not saying nothing, but it sure seems worth asking questions about when the state regulator can claim to have tested samples five times and come up with nothing, certainly no hydrocarbons, and the EPA can test and come up with diesel.
I also liked the part where Lustgarten covers what I call calvinball:
"The industry’s definition boiled down to lawyerly semantics. It meant that fracturing couldn’t be blamed unless the high pressure inside the well at the moment it was fractured directly caused the contamination. “Hydraulic fracturing related contamination would result if the hydraulic fracturing stimulation is the sole cause of the well integrity to fail,” explained Lee Fuller, the lobbyist for the Independent Petroleum Association of America. According to Fuller’s definition, fracturing would not be the cause if the fracturing fluids were spilled on the surface, or if the fracking waste was improperly disposed of, or even if the cement casing in a well split apart after the enormous pressure of fracking, as has happened in several of the most egregious incidents."
But that's just me.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 06:38 PM
"According to Fuller’s definition, fracturing would not be the cause if the fracturing fluids.."
were spilled on the surface, or if the fracking waste was improperly disposed of, or even if the cement casing in a well split apart after the enormous pressure of fracking, as has happened in several of the most egregious incidents."
But that's just me.
And in other stuff, searching about Thiesse brought up this:
http://deq.state.wy.us/out/downloads/WQ%20NOV%20Closure%203994-06.PDF
What was that about?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41950099/ns/us_news-environment/t/oil-well-blowout-leaves-wyo-area-unsettled/
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 06:50 PM
I actually lived in Upstate NY for 30 years. Methane in water wells is a very common phenomena. It is not unusual to be able to light the tap right at the well with a match (water pump off, of course) and have a nice healthy flame. One friend of mine drilled water wells on one of his properties just to collect the methane in hopes of using it to heat greenhouses, alas, it was just not quite enough, though he could have heated a one room house with it through the winters there. I suspect that 'city folk' just don't quite get it, that methane in water wells is normal in some areas.
One would suppose that gas drillers drill where they have expectations of more natural gas and that these would be areas in which one would expect to find more naturally occurring methane in water wells.
This piece says that the methane in water wells closer to gas wells 'chemical makeup more closely resembles the deep shale gas'. Note that the study actually found the gas in the close wells matched the gas produced in the wells. Which is not surprising at all. And has almost nothing to do with the issue of 'fracking' - but rather applies more to proper sealing of well casings of any type of gas or oil well.
The conclusion of the Duke study is this: 'We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and—possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use.'.
I will note that the piece in the NY Times, 'Study Finds Methane Contamination Rises Near Shale Gas Wells' By MIKE SORAGHAN of Greenwire actually gave direct links to both the original Duke study, and 'Research and Policy Recommendations for Hydraulic Fracturing and Shale‐Gas Extraction' produced as a result. A rare and welcomed practice. Unusual for the NY Times, and especially for an advocacy group like Greenwire.
#12 Posted by Kip Hansen, CJR on Mon 5 Dec 2011 at 09:38 PM
Ya know, I kinda schooled you on your last attempt at using a National Review hack to discredit a propublica journalist leaving you with only the supposed email conversation between Wyoming ground water regulator, Mark Thiesse, and said hack as your path of viable attack, which you've spread all over the net on many a webpage to do with fracking (aren't you a good little worker ant).
LOL … oh Thimbles! Spoken like the publicly educated mouthbreather you are! Lustgarten gets caught distorting a conversation he had with a source claiming that contamination was from gas drilling when the source was explicit about it being from water well drilling, gats caught inventing and misapplying statistics from state regulatory officials and all you can do is scream “rightwing hack” .. talk about a classic logical fallacy. But Isuppose for folks like you anything will do, so long as it plays into your confirmation bias.
Kinda sorta like how Lustgarten used a conclusion made about coal seam gas drilling and tried to apply it to shale drilling without mentioning that little pertinent fact? Oh, if only there were a watchdog dedicated to journalistic excellence that would speak truth to power!
The EPA seemed to have better luck:
Hmmm … it would appear that Thiesse was speaking about the Meek’s well specifically and the EPA’s data doesn’t appear to include the Meek’s well. Nice bait and switcheroo you did there, taking tips from Lustgarten I see.
Of particular concern were compounds called adamantanes — a natural hydrocarbon found in gas — and an obscure chemical called 2-butoxyethanol phosphate. 2-BEp is a compound closely related to 2-BE, a substance known to be used in hydraulic fracturing solutions
You aren’t serious with this garbage, are you? 2BE and 2BEP are not the same chemical, 2BEP being used as an insecticide in agriculture and flame retardant. 2BE cannot “magically” transform in 2BEP, the process isn’t as simple as mixing 2BE and phosphates. Not that I have an extensive background in organic chemistry (actually, I do) but even if by some quirk of stoichiometry all the constituents were in just the right concentrations, all the necessary catalysts were present, and all the planets were lined up just right what are the odds that the kinematics would allow for a complete reaction of 2BE in to 2BEP. Remember, no 2BE was found in any of the samples tested.
PRAISE BE TO SCIENCE
I'm not saying nothing, but it sure seems worth asking questions about when the state regulator can claim to have tested samples five times and come up with nothing, certainly no hydrocarbons, and the EPA can test and come up with diesel.
You might have a point if you could show that the same wells were tested, but you can’t and relied on the same “trick” that Lustgarten commonly employs.
#13 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 6 Dec 2011 at 12:38 PM
"LOL … oh Thimbles! Spoken like the publicly educated mouthbreather you are! Lustgarten gets caught distorting a conversation he had with a source claiming that contamination was from gas drilling when the source was explicit about it being from water well drilling, gats caught inventing and misapplying statistics from state regulatory officials and all you can do is scream “rightwing hack” .. talk about a classic logical fallacy."
Dude, people can read the quote Kopel put in his article side by side the Lustarten article I linked. They can see for themselves how he mangled the quote, leaving out "In other cases, the contamination occurred not from actual drilling below ground, but on the surface, where accidental spills and leaky tanks, trucks and waste pits allowed benzene and other chemicals to leach into streams, springs and water wells". Then they can see how he contacted a might as well be random official and asked him "how many cases they had "documented" of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing. He said, "None.""
And then they can watch the youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysCXeXDt4_Y
Kopel mangled quotes and lied about a journalist in order to give the impression that the journalist mangled quotes and lied. Do you and he realize we can check all this stuff?
And then you tell me Kopel got an email. Whoopie, a liar hack claims he got an email which supports him from an official. When that official goes officially on the record instead of a blog, lemme know. Otherwise you got the words of a lying hack who tried to smear a decent journalist.
"Hmmm … it would appear that Thiesse was speaking about the Meek’s well specifically and the EPA’s data doesn’t appear to include the Meek’s well. Nice bait and switcheroo you did there, taking tips from Lustgarten I see."
Doesn't 'appear'? Please, for the love of buddha, document your charge or don't make it.
"You aren’t serious with this garbage, are you? 2BE and 2BEP are not the same chemical, 2BEP being used as an insecticide in agriculture and flame retardant."
Mikey-child likes to put claims in people's mouths and refute them. It's a skill. No one claims that the 2BE and 2BEP are the same or that one transformed into the other. And 2BEP isn't used as an insecticide, it's used as a plasticizer for insecticide. Therefore it could be used as a plasticizer for other purposes and that's a dispute between Encana and the EPA. (Oh look, the math wiz is a chemistry wiz too. And he's works in nuclear plants, has a part time position on the Justice League, and has all day to stalk blogs for posts on hydraulic fracturing. Where does he get the time?)
"You might have a point if you could show that the same wells were tested, but you can’t and relied on the same “trick” that Lustgarten commonly employs."
Document the trick. Should be easy for Mike E Coyote, super genius.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 6 Dec 2011 at 05:01 PM
Kopel mangled quotes and lied about a journalist in order to give the impression that the journalist mangled quotes and lied. Do you and he realize we can check all this stuff?
Wrong again buckaroo .. Kopel contacted the same officials Lustgarten claimed to have contacted and they told him that there were ZERO case directly attributed to HF, its really that so, simple. It was a lie, end of story.
And then you tell me Kopel got an email. Whoopie, a liar hack claims he got an email which supports him from an official. When that official goes officially on the record instead of a blog, lemme know. Otherwise you got the words of a lying hack who tried to smear a decent journalist.
Yes, because there is a grand conspiracy afoot to make you like foolish.
Doesn't 'appear'? Please, for the love of buddha, document your charge or don't make it.
I am not the one drawing the comparison. None of the EPA sampling reports mention Meek’s well, so its complete garbage to make the comparison like you did, but taking a play from Lustgarten, that’s a winning move to be sure.
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/phase4/Phase4DataApril2011.pdf
Mikey-child likes to put claims in people's mouths and refute them. It's a skill. No one claims that the 2BE and 2BEP are the same or that one transformed into the other. And 2BEP isn't used as an insecticide, it's used as a plasticizer for insecticide. Therefore it could be used as a plasticizer for other purposes and that's a dispute between Encana and the EPA.
Lets press rewind on this:
and an obscure chemical called 2-butoxyethanol phosphate. 2-BEp is a compound closely related to 2-BE, a substance known to be used in hydraulic fracturing solutions
As I stated, there is no way 2BE (known to be used in some drilling operations) magically transforms into 2BEP (not used in drilling operations) 100%. This one not only employs Lustgarten’s now well documented bait and switch technique, but also play on the readers ignorance (easy in your case I suppose).
#15 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 8 Dec 2011 at 12:32 PM
On a related note:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/story/2011-12-08/epa-fracking-pollution/51745004/1
#16 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Thu 8 Dec 2011 at 02:47 PM
"Wrong again buckaroo .. Kopel contacted the same officials Lustgarten claimed to have contacted"
But he didn't talk to the same officials on the subject Kopel claims Lustgarten said.
Be warned. Simple reading comprehension is required for this next part.
"The contamination in Sublette County is significant because it is the first to be documented by a federal agency, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. But more than 1,000 other cases of contamination have been documented by courts and state and local governments in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania."
Kopel asked David Neslin whether or not the claim Kopel made was true: "I asked Lustgarten for the basis for his claim about more than a thousand "documented" state cases of hydraulic fracturing water contamination"
Neslin said that's wrong and here he explains how that's wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysCXeXDt4_Y
"and HE told him that there were ZERO case directly attributed to HF, its really that so, simple. It was a lie, end of story."
And you would be correct if that was what Lustgarten said, but he didn't.
Warning! Once again, simple reading skills required:
"But more than 1,000 other cases of contamination have been documented by courts and state and local governments in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In one case, a house exploded after hydraulic fracturing created underground passageways and methane seeped into the residential water supply. In other cases, the contamination occurred not from actual drilling below ground, but on the surface, where accidental spills and leaky tanks, trucks and waste pits allowed benzene and other chemicals to leach into streams, springs and water wells."
So Neslin and Lustgarten agree. Its really that so, simple. End of story.
So why was it so complex for you? Because Kopel lied about what Lustgarten said and you believed it without checking, which is a case study in - what did you call it? Oh yeah, confirmation bias, jackass.
"I am not the one drawing the comparison. None of the EPA sampling reports mention Meek’s well, so its complete garbage to make the comparison like you did, but taking a play from Lustgarten, that’s a winning move to be sure."
No one's well is mentioned by name. They all have sample id's attached to them. Unless you know Meeks sample id, what are you talking about?
"As I stated, there is no way 2BE (known to be used in some drilling operations) magically transforms into 2BEP (not used in drilling operations [to your knowledge]) 100%. This one not only employs Lustgarten’s now well documented bait and switch technique, but also play on the readers ignorance (easy in your case I suppose)."
Sigh. So let's be clear, the EPA suspected the chemical came from hydro fracking, not Lustgraten, and the EPA didn't make the claim that 2BE turns into 2BEP. But maybe if you repeat your inaccurate argument some more times, these facts will change.
Or maybe it won't, so stop it.
Addendum:
The report has been released and seems to show the presence of 2BE and the results for 2BEP are a little weak. So this little argument is moot; they found the stuff used in fracking.
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 8 Dec 2011 at 08:18 PM