Josh Fox’s Gasland Part II Faces Aggressive Oil and Gas Public Relations Campaign

By Sharon Kelly via DeSmogBlog

“It’s coming,” a baritone voice warns as images of a fiery hellscape flash across the screen. “Lies. Deception,” someone whispers, just before the narrator launches into a diatribe about Josh Fox’s new documentary, Gasland Part II, in a youtube clip whose esthetic falls somewhere between b-horror movie and election season attack ad. It’s the sort of video that might be campy if it wasn’t made with an actual budget.

Posted last November under the account energyforamerica, the faux trailer is one of the first hits in a Gasland 2 youtube search.

“I think it’s kinda unprecedented,” Mr. Fox said after the mock trailer appeared on youtube five months ago. “I don’t know of any other trailer that has attacked a film before even the actual trailer of the film has come out.”

Mr. Fox, the documentarian who made the Emmy-winning Gasland in 2010, and whose new movie Gasland Part II is now making its world premiere at Tribeca, has already withstood an aggressive P.R. campaign the likes of which few journalists and film-makers have ever experienced. The man who forever linked fracking to flaming tap water in the public mind has found himself, once again, in the oil and gas industry’s doghouse.

With funding from an array of oil companies, front groups like Energy in Depth have created entire websites devoted to “debunking” the first-hand reports shown in the first Gasland, produced their own film titled Truthland, and maneuvered behind the scenes to undermine Gasland’s credibility amongst the media.

Now the oil industry is gearing up for a new campaign to attack the sequel. And early signs indicate they plan to pull out all the stops.

Energy for America, which posted the Gasland 2 youtube video, turns out to be an organization that is tied to the Koch brothers and funded by the American Energy Alliance (AEA), the Institute for Energy Research (IER) and Americans for Prosperity, according to Sourcewatch, which adds that all three organizations are funded by the energy industry.

Here’s the anti-Gasland trailer produced by Energy for America:

The youtube plant is just the tip of the iceberg.

Last August, Energy in Depth wrote a letter to HBO, which broadcast Gasland, claiming that the original documentary was seriously flawed. The letter informed the network that Energy in Depth had conveyed to Mr. Fox suggestions for his new movie. The industry’s letter cited statements by outgoing EPA head Lisa Jackson, where she disavowed the idea that her agency had ever officially determined that the fracking process caused chemicals to enter groundwater.

Let’s pause to review the facts here: Ms. Jackson’s comments aside, EPA documents show clearly that as early as 1982, the agency had documented groundwater contamination from fracking, and complained that sealed settlements made documenting more cases difficult. An EPA official who oversaw that report told The New York Times that the case was not unique.

But nonetheless, the baseless claim that fracking has never contaminated groundwater is still repeated by those who support shale gas drilling.

Asked about the letter to HBO, Energy in Depth Communications Director JD Krohn did not respond by press time.

The oil and gas industry is famous for its ad hominum attacks on critics. It launched asimilar campaign against the movie Promised Land. The New York Times also cameunder attack, as did Rolling Stone, when their journalists turned a critical eye toward industry claims.

But Mr. Fox has long been the gas industry’s favorite target. The campaign against Gasland has gone on for years.

The oil and gas industry has backed an entire movie, Truthland, that mocks Gasland and attempts to debunk it. In Truthland, a Susquehanna county housewife sets off on a roadtrip ala Gasland – but the 34-minute movie, produced at the prompting of the industry, has been panned as “essentially an extended infomercial.” Nonetheless, screenings have popped up across the Marcellus region before the Gasland Part IIpremiere.

Public relations officials brag about dogging Mr. Fox whenever he appears in the media. Jeff Eshelman, Executive Vice-President of Energy in Depth, told attendees at a 2011 industry PR conference that they’ve worked hard to get their critique of Gasland attention.

“That piece has been really successful,” Mr. Eshelman told his audience “because we follow the director Josh Fox, wherever he goes.”

Mr. Eshelman described how Energy in Depth routinely contacts the producers of television shows, like the Daily Show or the Dylan Ratigan show on MSNBC, and feeds the producers industry talking points in the hopes of undermining Mr. Fox’s credibility and encouraging hostile questioning by the hosts of shows.

The oil and gas industry even sent a letter to the State Department, objecting to the agency’s inclusion of Gasland alongside 28 other films in its American Film Showcaseafter Gasland was nominated for an Oscar.

Nonetheless, Gasland has earned a cult following at the same time it helped to make the term fracking a household word.

“What we’ve seen in the last few years, and I hope it’s peaking, is a completely heightened public awareness around hydraulic fracturing and an increase in active opposition,” the president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association said in Sept. 2011,according to Natural Gas Watch. “I hate to credit the movie Gasland, but it’s really changed the conversation.”

Gasland featured interviews with people who said they were affected by oil and gas drilling and fracking. Mr. Fox, a documentarian, traveled the U.S. to investigate the impacts of an emerging onshore drilling boom in 2008. What he found raised many questions about the oil and gas industry’s safety record and the impact of drilling on communities nationwide.

The oil and gas industry analyzed every word in the film, looking to “debunk” the statements made by Fox in the documentary. In a widely-ciculated white paper, the industry accused the filmmaker of skewing the facts.

Mr. Fox and others responded directly to that white paper by issuing a 39 page point-by-point response.

The industry made much of tests showing that the methane in Mike Markham’sflaming faucet was “biogenic” – or organic and formed at shallow depths – in nature, claiming this proves that the gas was naturally occurring. The gas wells in that area only produced the other type of gas, thermogenic gas, formed at high pressures deep underground, and therefore the gas coming from Mr. Markham’s water faucet could not have come from fracking.

Of course, this relies on the idea that contamination only “counts” if the problem was directly caused by the hydraulic fracturing process alone – not the process of drilling the gas well through shallower rock formations or the rock disturbances that could be caused by extensive drilling and fracking of multiple well bores, Mr. Fox wrote in his response.

Mr. Fox cut the Gordian knot by pointing out that just because the gas wasn’t thermogenic, that doesn’t mean that the methane didn’t reach Mr. Markham’s tap as the result of oil and gas drilling nearby. Biogenic gas could have been dislodged by the drilling process, he responded.

More to the point, tests at a neighboring water well, whose owners also lit their tapwater in the film, showed the presence of thermogenic gas. Those neighbors settled with the industry and now are subject to a gag order, the report adds.

But by calling the contamination of Mr. Markham’s water into question, industry advocates hope to stall legislation that could help prevent these sorts of incidents.

“The point is not to make a coherent argument,” Mr. Fox said when asked about the industry blowback during Gasland’s first stint on HBO. “The point is to create doubt and to try to create a perception that there is a debate. If there is a debate, then all of the sudden, the science is not in yet and we don’t have to act.”

It is worth acknowledging that in some areas, methane has long been found in drinking water supplies. Towns like Burning Springs were named after the phenomenon. But it is also clear that in some cases, water that was free from methane before drilling began was indeed tainted by the industry’s activities. In Pennsylvania alone, hundreds of violations for faulty shale gas well casings have been issued by regulators.

In his new documentary, Mr. Fox again keeps his focus on the people whose lives have been changed by the shale drilling boom as he travels from the Gulf coast to central Texas, then north to his home in the Delaware River basin.

Mr. Fox recently told his hometown paper that Gasland Part II would continue to follow what’s happened to some of the people whose stories were told in Gasland. He hastened to add that the environment is not the only issue that the film addresses.

“But really, it’s about another layer of contamination due to fracking,” he said, “which is a contamination of our democracy.”

— Sharon Kelly via DeSmogBlog. Reprinted with permission.


11 Responses to Josh Fox’s Gasland Part II Faces Aggressive Oil and Gas Public Relations Campaign

  1. fj says:

    Yes, the fossil fuel industry has contaminated democracy.

  2. The climate change issue has been plagued by the problem of false balance in the media. Climate change is manifest in the melting ice caps, the migration of species, the shifting of growing seasons, and the acidification of the ocean, among other things. The peer-reviewed science is unequivocal. It’s happening, and it’s caused by humans.

    To get popular agreement to undertake the WW2-style effort needed to counter atmospheric GHG accumulation, credibility is key.

    The fossil fuel industry sows disinformation and doubt about climate change. I understand Josh Fox’s desire to counter the big-money manipulations. But …

    He overplays his hand. The anti-Gasland II trailer is a parody of the hysterical tone of the original Gasland. The difficult and unfair truth is that those on the right side of the facts—that climate change is real and caused by burning fossil fuels–have to be careful with those facts and the way they deliver them if they want to win the credibility war. This is why we rely on science.

    Fracking is a side show. It has its dangers, just as any resource extraction has dangers. (Witness the dilbit spill at Mayflower, Arkansas.) There have been some bad situations, but most of these have to do with sloppy well work and careless water management, not fracking per se.

    The success of fracking is a direct threat to renewables, conservation, and carbon reduction at every level. But demonizing it is the wrong strategy. Demonization is too easily defeated by facts. It risks creating a credibility problem with the general public, who have to be persuaded to reduce fossil fuel use dramatically, in short order.

    Natural gas production in this country has increased by 30 percent over the past few years, which cut the price of gas in half. It’s about 20% of the cost of oil on a per-MMBtu basis. And as awful as it is to see someone’s tapwater burn, these are isolated instances. Josh has to go all over the country to find them. That speaks to the proportionate risk-benefit of the activity. The public is going to say (does say), you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. The policy reaction is likely to be, help the damaged individuals, but keep on drilling.

    Similarly, the gas industry is making improvements to reduce the risk of these kinds of accidents, and to reduce the need for water in the process. They will argue that it’s getting safer, and that argument will be credible.

    We need to curtail fossil fuel production not because a few people are victimized by industrial accidents, but because it’s destroying the atmosphere. If we harp on the dangers of fracking as if they were worse than what happened in Mayflower, Arkansas, we risk appearing to grasp at straws. We have to stop the drilling for the reason that is causing the genuine danger: we’re completely screwing up the weather, and if we don’t reverse it, agriculture will fail.

  3. Mike Roddy says:

    It doesn’t sound like you’ve seen Gasland’s short sequel called The Sky Is Pink. A professor from Cornell shows how drilling casings inevitably fail, and after 50 years the failure rate is 50%.

    The process is inherently dangerous. You seem to want to gin up a controversy instead.

  4. fj says:

    Fracking and natural gas are not transition technologies.

    We should be going clean tech immediately and directly.

    We do not have time to do things the hard slow way.

    Fracking is no good; sounds like a nightmare in too many ways.

    Natural gas production produces too much methane which is twenty times worse than CO2.

  5. Not at all, Mike. I’m just arguing for the maximum ability to be perceived as credible.

    No, I haven’t seen The Sky Is Pink. But I did see that the EPA revised downward their estimates of fugitive methane from fracking operations by more than 50%. These are the numbers Cornell relied on in their original analysis that suggested fracked gas was worse than coal from a lifecycle GHG perspective. With the revision, gas is still apparently better. The EPA continues to study this.

    The well bore of a fracked well is the same as a well bore for a conventional well. I haven’t heard the 50%-in-50-year failure rate before, but whether it’s accurate or not, the failure rate for fracked well bores would be exactly the same as conventional.

    Fracking does present bigger water issues than conventional drilling because it uses more water and produces more contaminated water. To the extent that it continues, much more effort needs to be put into minimizing the risks to surface water.

    That’s why the Cornell people are particularly concerned. If I were them, I’d be concerned, too. The shale sits directly underneath the New York City watershed. Since fracking uses water, just one accident, whether from poor wastewater management or a bad well bore, could really foul up drinking water for NYC. In fact, that’s the biggest risk to the spread of fracking. If they allow it in the NYC watershed, and there’s an accident, it’s pretty much all over for fracking everywhere. So I think the Cornell people are turning over every rock (so to speak) to keep fracking from happening there. It’s probably an area where fracking should be prohibited. The risk is too high.

    But bottom line: all fossil fuel production needs to be reduced asap. I guess you could argue that stopping fracking would achieve that eduction. I’m just concerned that the Gasland approach sets itself up for dismissal by policy makers and the public, because it’s long on emotion and exaggeration, so vulnerable to criticism.

  6. I agree that all effort should be made to transition away from fossil fuels as fast as possible.

  7. Mike Roddy says:

    OK, thanks for the clarification, Change. I don’t know enough about the mechanics of oil and gas drilling to be able to explain why gas drilling appears to result in more casing failures than oil drilling. More pressure? More opportunities for smaller molecules to escape through fractures in the cement?

    If gas is even close to coal in emissions, we’re wasting our time here. Gas is already penciled in to replace all the solar plants that did not get built in the Mojave, thanks to sabotage by fake green organizations. More on that later- it’s a sordid story I’m researching full time now.

  8. MorinMoss says:

    They didn’t invent the strategy but they do seem to have perfected it.

  9. Neven says:

    Is there any way I can watch that trailer without giving those bastards a view?

  10. Anne van der Bom says:

    “I think it’s kinda unprecedented,” Mr. Fox said after the mock trailer appeared on youtube five months ago. “I don’t know of any other trailer that has attacked a film before even the actual trailer of the film has come out.”

    It hurts. Keep punching, mr Fox.

  11. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Maybe fracking wells fail more often because they are detonating explosions down there, and pumping lots of nasty stuff down as well, rather than merely being a conduit to the surface for hydrocarbons. The anti-fracking message must, I believe, be both anti-ecological damage from fracking (and I give little credence to agit-prop that fracking is, suddenly, less damaging, and that the industry is ‘improving’ its processes, which sounds like good old ‘greenwash’ to me)and anti-emissions. Also fracking wells will, I’ll bet on Murphy’s Law Principles, go on slowly leaking methane for decades-and there are going to be tens or hundreds of thousands of them. And the whole obscenity is simply unnecessary if renewables were rolled out instead.