The New York Times’ Completely Fictitious Fracking Article (UPDATED)
At Hot Air, Jazz Shaw thoroughly dismantles one of the worst examples of agenda-driven, slanted, left-wing mendacity posing as journalism – namely, the New York Times’ breathless smear of hydraulic fracturing over the weekend.
The NYT piece, written by Ian Urbina, assaults fracking along familiar lines – namely, the meme that wastewater from the fracking process is full of icky stuff and ruins drinking water. Only this is a little different take from what we’ve already seen; while previous attacks on the practice have made the claim that natural gas wells using fracking to produce gas from shale formations contaminated underground aquifers – a narrative we’ve debunked on this site countless times – Urbina’s spin is that natural gas drillers are trucking that wastewater to the treatment plant and dumping it there.
With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.
While the existence of the toxic wastes has been reported, thousands of internal documents obtained by The New York Times from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood.
The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle.
Other documents and interviews show that many E.P.A. scientists are alarmed, warning that the drilling waste is a threat to drinking water in Pennsylvania. Their concern is based partly on a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law.
Urbina then commits a mistake which all by itself would shred whatever credibility the article may have…
“There are business pressures” on companies to “cut corners,” John Hanger, who stepped down as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in January, has said. “It’s cheaper to dump wastewater than to treat it.”
Records back up that assertion.
A mistake, because as Shaw notes, Hanger was never interviewed for the piece and didn’t issue the quote in the story in the context Urbina quoted him.
Well, he should certainly be in a position to know, so that must be some damning testimony, eh? Well… it would be, had the author actually spoken to Mr. Hanger for the article or even had a clue what he was talking about. But he didn’t and John quickly took to his blog to set the record straight and to point out that the quoted comments related to a different situation and that his actual position was almost precisely the opposite of that portrayed in the Times.
Shaw then excerpts Hanger’s blog post on the subject…
“[T]hough I am quoted in the piece, this reporter never interviewed me. … The words that I find myself saying in this piece were said by me somewhere at some time and in some context but they were not said in the context of an interview for this piece. The reporter never called me after January 18th for any purpose including to confirm the quotation that he put together for me. The reporter did not ask the new administration for my contact information after I left office.”
“I was informed by agency radiation experts that the radiation levels were not a threat to truck drivers, workers at sewage treatment facilities or the public. … I believe the agency staff were handling this issue in a serious, careful manner. I still believe that to be the case.”
As for the radioactive materials supposedly released into the drinking water, Shaw notes that those are naturally occurring and in quantities so small that they don’t affect anyone when they get into a river. Hanger’s blog entry is clear on that – and he demands that Pennsylvania immediately begin testing for those elements and release the results to prove it.
Those are but two examples among many Shaw uncovers in Urbina’s lengthy diatribe. It’s so full of errors, misleading statements, straw men and half-truths as to indict the Times’ credibility in total for having run it.
But this is typical stuff. The Left, of which the Times is the foremost propaganda instrument, simply cannot handle shale gas and the prospect of what it holds for the American future. For two reasons. First, shale gas doesn’t require a government subsidy like wind and solar energy do; it is profitable and versatile in that it can be used to power the grid and as a transportation fuel. It flies in the face of the Left’s narrative that government needs to promote “alternative” energy sources made of fairy dust and polar bear breath or else we’re at the mercy of foreign oil.
And second, shale gas and fracking are being successfully regulated at the state level. It doesn’t require a federal EPA response. A five-year EPA study concluded in 2004 proved it. That’s why Urbina’s piece, like many before it, decry “lax” regulation at the state level.
Because of those two factors, we’ve had an all-out effort for over a year to convince the public shale gas is a silent killer that must be tied in knots by the government. So far that effort hasn’t produced any results outside of New York, which has shut down operations in its part of the Marcellus Shale. But they will keep trying, regardless of how many times their lies are exposed as such, until someday something bad will happen that can be demagogued into strangling a vital national industry the way the combination of Three Mile Island and a stupid Jane Fonda movie destroyed the development of nuclear power in the late 1970′s.
That’s how this works.
The good news is that it isn’t the late 1970′s anymore. The legacy media isn’t the only outlet for information, and sites like this one and Hot Air are capable of debunking crap like Urbina’s New York Times piece before it builds a false narrative into a groundswell for public policy.
UPDATE: Oh, by the way – this didn’t make it into Urbina’s piece. Wonder why…
Senator Inhofe: I’m anxious to get to this second panel, Madame Chairman. I can’t remain silent after Senator Lautenberg’s statement about hydraulic fracturing. I have something to say about that, but first, I want to ask all three of you and response: Do any one of you know of one case of ground water contamination that has resulted from hydraulic fracturing? Start with you, Mr. Silva.
Peter Silva: Not that I’m aware of, no.
Senator Inhofe: Ms. Giles?
Cynthia Giles: I understand there’s some anecdotal evidence, but I don’t know that it’s been firmly established.
Senator Inhofe: So the answer is no, you don’t know of it.
Cynthia Giles nods.
Senator Inhofe: Alright, Mr. Larsen?
Matthew Larsen: I’ll have to respond in writing, I don’t, I’m not aware of all of our studies on that topic.
Senator Inhofe: Well, but you’ve already answered. You’re not aware. That’s the question I asked you. Here’s the problem we have. Senator Lautenberg referred to this as something that’s new. This isn’t new. It’s been around over fifty years. And, we do approximately thirty-five thousand wells a year – nearly a million wells, without one documented case of groundwater contamination. I’m concerned about this, because I know for a fact that if you took away the ability, as all other countries do, of hydraulic fracturing, we’re going to become much more dependent upon other countries for our ability to produce oil. Now, I want to repeat that one more time that there has never been a documented case in almost a million uses of that technology. The EPA did an extensive study of this back, prior to, it lasted a long period of time, they concluded in 2004 that it does not warrant any further study. And, I want to submit for the record a document that tells the history of hydraulic fracturing. And, I will reserve time in case I need it, I hope I don’t.
Dear Senator Inhofe…If the waste by product is safe, then I assume you wouldn’t be opposed to drinking it for us. You could serve as the first documented case of proving that it is safe to drink. I am requesting that you do so in a campaign ad for your next election. This is a serious request. Please show us how safe it is by drinking a 16 oz. tumbler of it. Please don’t let me down.—An ardent supporter
If you take fresh water and use it to break up a formation of sand and rocks underground, how does it suddenly become “Dangerous”? I will drink the water going into the hole and so will the good Senator. Coming out of the hole it could be a bit muddy, but sure as hell NOT TOXIC. Why don’t you looney liberals do some research, or get on something like do a “Study” of how since you abolished DDT, 1,000,000 Africans a YEAR die from malaria?????
And then request donations to end malaria in Africa. If they cared, they would bring back DDT.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Fracting is not just water and sand….they commonly include a cocktail of chemicals…including diesel fuel pumped under extreme pressure. The drilling companies won’t disclose the ingredients being used…. In addition, fracting always results in salt contaminating the ground water….always. Come live in Montana and N. Dakota and talk to ranchers who no longer have potable water for their cattle….due to NG drilling operations now in their area.
I’ll drink it.
It’s 99 percent water and sand.
And I’ve never seen a 16 oz. tumbler.
An “ardent supporter” of whom? Certainly not of Senator Inhofe….if so you would have been exposed to truth long ago, instead of making such a immature request and insinuating that he was lying.
More likely, you are a supporter of proven liars like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their ilk.
It must be very troubling for you to learn that Obama’s puppet master, George Soros, is one of the world’s largest investors in deepwater drilling, but you are likely calmed by the fact that he is partnered with such a caring individual as DICTATOR Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
If not for the idiots named above AND their supporters, natural gas would be the fuel of choice today and we would not be dependent on any other country. Those ACTIVELY working to tear down this country would never want to see that, right? I am sure you know THAT answer.
Facts, Jack.
My favorite.
Finally I get mine without a side of BS on the plate, thank you.
The NYT and the EPA have an agenda regarding Oil Well Drilling??? Say What???
This article stinks and is more toxic than any water that may come from this type of profitable process to provide energy sources that will make us less dependent on foreign oil or gas. The obvious conclusion to draw is that this socialist writer seeks to continue to aid the downfall of our capitalistic Republic no matter what lies or untruths it takes to fulfill the agenda. The left wing wackos don’t care about this nation or it’s citizens. They only want to be on top!
Wow, how do you sleep with yourself at night. Really, even the original DEC report from the EPA, they took the VOLUNTARY list of chemicals that went into the water and sand. They didn’t list chromium going in, but when they tested the frack fluid going out, voila, in the DEC EPA report, sure enough, there it was chromium. Even the gas companies admit they still use diesel fuel even after a gentlemanly handshake not to. But again, prove it! Right? That’s their montra. And, the payment to Dimock, PA was for broken faulty casings in a Vertically fracked well. Hundreds of infractions but of course, they signed the regulatory agreement with the DEP out of duress. It just happens to be a coincidence, that Buffalo & Syracuse showed up on the list of having high levels of Chromium in their water supply after they accepted fracking waste. If it quaks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it’s a duck. I think the gas co. CEO’s should all take their golden parachutes and retire on fracking.
Montana rancher……fracting on a racnch adjacent to a rancher friend has left his ground water contaminated and unusable. More than just salt….you can smell diesel fuel in the tap water….which was clean and pure up until about a year after they started drilling for NG on the ranch next door. Today, they have to buy bottled water…and they can no longer use their well water for their cattle.
If you think NY Times article is not accurate….come visit affected ranchers out west….Montana, N Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, and etc…. If anything, NT Times doesn’t go far enough on describing the inadequacy of the EPA regs and how there’s a complete lack of enforcement….the energy companies own DC and they own Helena (any state capital they want).
While I am all for the production of shale gas I wouldn’t completely agree that “shale gas and fracking are being successfully regulated at the state level.” As pointed out on the website http://www.fairdrilling.com Haynesville Shale drilling units do not conform to state law. This does not exemplify “successful regulation.” A class action suit has been filed and our state is in a mess of trouble.
Sounds like a PR release from a plaintiff lawyer. Just because somebody makes a claim like that in an effort to drum up business doesn’t make it true.
I’m no plaintiff lawyer. If you take a look at the website I bet you would agree that it is true.
You’d bet wrong.
Sounds like you may lose $$$ in some Haynesville drilling units if those guys win?
Nope. But Louisiana’s economy sure will, and so will the rest of the
country.
There has been hydraulic fracturing in the United States for 60 years and
not a single documented case of ground water contamination.
Not one.
You obviously have not read the fairdrilling website. It in no way condemns hydraulic fracturing. It promotes shale drilling but just points out that the drilling units being established do not conform to our one-well-per-unit state law. One landowner force-pooled into one drilling unit may benefit from 8 wells in that unit while his neighbor in the next section benefits from none. It’s not fair apportionment of drilling and it is an unjust exercise of the police power of the state.
Well…not only that but what about fracking with propane? I tried to blog an article on this and the Times refused to print it and believe me, I follow the rules. GasFrac Energy uses a method wherein propane is used to take the oil of the shale. It appears that the NYT is the DeFacto News organization for the Obama Administration via the EPA.
http://www.gasfrac.com/presentations/GasFracInvestPresentationJanuary2011.pdf
http://transloading.org/propane-fracking-an-environmental-consideration/
Now…this is what I wanted to put in the NYT…and they refused. There is another altnerative if the people want it.