Contaminated drinking water catches fire as it comes out of the faucet.
What the Frack?
By JENI BELL
If you live in Fort Worth, you’ve undoubtedly heard that “natural gas is fueling America’s future.” Leading natural gas producers like Cheseapeake and XTO have filled our airways with messages promoting their causes, but those messages have recently come under attack. Environmentalists and gas producers have been publicly duking it out over the past few years, and the resulting publicity mess has left the American public in a cloud of confusion. At the center of all this mudslinging stands the issue of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”
Gas companies have invested millions to fabricate favorable images of fracking that support their agendas. Messages have flooded our televisions, billboards have popped up across the city, and political candidates are citing natural gas as an alternative energy source to end America’s foreign dependence on oil. But are these public relations campaigns giving us the whole story?
Fracking is the method used to extract natural gas from almost two miles under the surface of the earth. That natural gas can be used as an alternative energy source to more traditional fossil fuels such as coal and oil—two fuels that in recent years have been reevaluated and deemed harmful to the environment. Once a deep natural gas well has been drilled, a highly pressurized mix of water, sand, and hundreds of chemicals is forced deep into shale formations to break up the rocks and dislodge the natural gas that’s embedded within. Sounds easy enough right? Not quite. This is where the environmentalists step in.
Many are concerned that the chemicals used in the fracking process are contaminating the drinking water that surrounds the well site. The average natural gas well is 8,000 feet deep, and drinking water aquifers are about 1,000 feet deep. In order for gas producers to access the natural gas, they have to go through the section of earth that stores our drinking water. In order to prevent the leak of natural gas and the resulting highly toxic fracking fluid into water wells, gas companies build cement well casings to protect drinking water. Unfortunately, these cement walls don’t always protect the water from becoming contaminated. When the walls fail, as they often have, the methane that is released during fracking contaminates nearby water supplies. And that’s just one problem associated with fracking.
Alarming reports of the effects of fracking on drinking water, public health, and environmental safety have begun to pile up. In western Colorado, the Strudley family has filed a lawsuit claiming their drinking water and air were contaminated because oil and gas drilling companies neglected their responsibilities. The Strudleys reported rashes and nosebleeds soon after a well was drilled a mile from their home. Other residents living nearby have complained of odors strong enough to induce nausea, dizziness, coughing, and burning eyes. These symptoms aren’t unique to western Colorado; similar problems are occurring all over the United States. In Pennsylvania, people are getting sick and are unable to drink their tap water, do their dishes, or shower safely, because their water has become contaminated by drilling. Hundreds of videos have surfaced across the Internet featuring people who are able to light their water on fire as it comes out of the faucet. In one instance, a family was filmed filling a metal trough with water and heating the surface of the water with a blowtorch. As the water temperature increased, it was clear that the heat was causing the chemicals in the water to harden and form a thin layer on the surface. When the family had the substance tested, they found that it was plastic. Let me say that again: the chemicals present in this family’s well water formed plastic in a matter of seconds after being heated with a blowtorch. With all this evidence against the safety of fracking, it’s hard to imagine how gas producers could not only counter these accusations, but also turn around and create multi-million dollar publicity campaigns to promote their industry.
Natural gas producers aren’t denying that drinking water is being contaminated, that the environment surrounding their wells is deteriorating, or that people who live near drill sites are having health problems. They’re just saying it isn’t their fault. When accused, gas companies simply reply, “Prove it.”
Aubrey K. McClendon is the co-founder and CEO of Chesapeake Energy, the second largest producer of natural gas in America. In an interview with 60 Minutes, McClendon justified the practice of fracking by saying, “there are dangerous chemicals in Lysol but you still have it under your sink.” Yes, you’re right Mr. McClendon, I regularly use household products that aren’t safe to drink, but there is just one minor difference—I’m not blasting millions of gallons of toxic liquid deep inside the earth and claiming that it has no negative consequences. This example is just one of many instances when gas producers refuse to honestly and directly address the concerns surrounding fracking.
Where is the line between promoting a company and lying? When it comes to natural gas, it seems like publicity campaigns are a game of half-truths. Gas companies are choosing their words wisely and creating a misleading image of what they are doing to our environment.
Chesapeake has created a public relations campaign centered on the slogan, “Chesapeake, America’s champion of natural gas.” In an obvious attempt to appeal to viewers’ deepest values and emotions, Chesapeake television commercials feature images of American flags, modern day cowboys riding across open plains, U.S. Marines, and even children. Instead of addressing proven facts to support their industry, Chesapeake makes overarching claims that are void of substance. They claim that “natural gas is American,” and that “as a nation we find ourselves relying on resources from places who salute any flag but ours,” and even that by using natural gas “we are keeping our money at home.”
In a recent article, a fracking advocate made the argument that pro-frackers are Wal-Mart people, whereas environmentalists shop at L.L. Bean—that it was generational farmers vs. the newly arrived; those barely hanging on vs. well-to-do pensioners; deer season vs. opera season; those who work with their hands vs. those who work with their mouths; community college vs. private college; and those who did their tour of duty vs. ‘60s radicals. I’m certainly not saying that in some instances these comparisons aren’t accurate; I’m just wondering what any of those backhanded insults actually have to do with whether or not fracking is safe.
In January of 2010, documentary filmmaker Josh Fox released a controversial film titled Gasland, which attacked the practices of American gas producers and their use of fracking. Gasland asserted claims that startled the public and created an instant buzz surrounding Fox’s project. As word spread, people began to ask more questions about the consequences that fracking is having on our environment and public health. Six months later, in an attempt to counter the claims made in Gasland, a PR firm/lobbying group, Energy-In-Depth (funded by the American Petroleum Institute) released a fact-sheet entitled “Gasland Debunked.” The rebuttal opened by saying that “for an avant-garde filmmaker and stage director whose previous work has been recognized by the ‘Fringe Festival’ of New York City, HBO’s decision to air the Gasland documentary nationwide later this month represents Josh Fox’s first real foray into the mainstream—and, with the potential to reach even a portion of the network’s 30 million U.S. subscribers, a potentially significant one at that.” What most readers would interpret as an introduction to the documentary’s producer is really a different motive. The main claim of “Gasland Debunked” is that Fox exaggerated the claims made in Gasland to create an interesting film and neglected to create a sound, fact-based argument. By opening their rebuttal with a statement highlighting Fox’s involvement with over-the-top theatrics, Energy-In-Depth caused readers to see a picture of a man who prefers drama to facts. Instead of creating a counter-argument based in evidence, Energy-In-Depth nitpicked its way through Gasland’s transcript and attacked the documentary’s validity with misleading facts and ambiguous claims.
The issues brought to the public’s attention through the popularity of Gasland created an opportunity for civil discourse between environmentalists and gas producers. Instead of seizing the opportunity at hand and educating the public about both the pros and cons of fracking, natural gas producers became overly defensive and launched hard-hitting PR campaigns across the country. Over a year later, there’s still no end in sight for the mudslinging. We have a country full of people asking questions about the effects of fracking. Now it’s time for some straight answers.