Confused About Fracking? The American Enterprise Institute’s Disinformation Campaign may be the Cause.
It is in the public’s best interest to dissect the claims of industry—and their backers—and get to the roots of what is known and what is unknown about shale gas development.
High-volume hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is making it possible to extract natural gas from rock formations deep underground. Many sing its praises. Many do not. Then there are those that just try to confuse policymakers and the general public alike by spewing false information. With so many contradictory reports out there on natural gas, it’s sometimes nearly impossible to tell fact from fiction.
Fear not, we’re here to help.
Among those creating the confusion is Jon Entine of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), whose recent blog “More Questionable Reporting About the Dangers of Shale Gas” degrades public understanding of fracking.
AEI is, of course, an influential right-wing think tank to which the media (for better or worse) pays attention. It has a long history of taking money from corporations to promote the free-market, deregulatory agenda of big business, and a history of falsely undermining climate science.
Exxon Mobil, now the largest producer of natural gas in the United States, is in AEI’s “Corporate Leadership Circle,” having donated over $200,000 last year. So, Entine’s arguments are really questionable at best.
To begin, Entine discredits an important piece of independent research out of Cornell University by claiming it wasn’t peer-reviewed, a process essential to ensuring academic credibility. He dismisses the article as a letter that was simply released.
The truth is, the article was published in Climatic Change, a highly respected scientific journal, which, according to the journal’s Aims and Scope statement—contrary to Entine’s claim—subjects all its submissions to peer review. It’s a little surprising that, as a senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University, Entine wasn’t able to see this.
Entine also claims that the media didn’t sufficiently report on criticisms of the study, including those from the Natural Resources Defense Council, which according to Entine, debunk its credibility.
Yet, at the link Entine provides, the NRDC’s Dan Lashoff praises the study for highlighting the need for more data on the effects of fracking.
The important point here is that scientists have a very limited understanding of how much methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is being emitted from shale gas drilling across the United States. Lacking this understanding, we can’t know the full greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas.
This means that the natural gas industry’s promotion of shale gas as a bridge from fossil fuels to renewables is not based on science, and that more research is needed before exposing the public to the effects of fracking.
Entine concludes his post with a bizarre take on a recent New York Times article by Ian Urbina, an article which counters the oil and gas industry’s mantra that fracking poses no risks to groundwater.
The Urbina article details a 1987 EPA report that concluded fracking fluids had, in fact, contaminated a water well adjacent to fracking operations in Ridley, West Virginia. Deftly, Entine leads readers to believe that Urbina, not the 1987 EPA report, makes the claim of water well contamination.
Entine says that Urbina accuses industry representatives of trying to keep the 1987 EPA report from circulating, but in fact Urbina states that the report had simply gone unnoticed.
Entine claims that the case was sealed after being settled, and that this is why the 1987 EPA report to Congress was not circulated. Whether the settlement agreement was sealed is irrelevant, but the 1987 EPA report to Congress, which detailed the well contamination, was not sealed; it is a public report to Congress!
The confusion Entine is sowing with his misinformation benefits the oil and gas industry. This tactic isn’t new; we’ve witnessed ongoing attacks on climate scientists, not just climate change.
It is in the public’s best interest to dissect the claims of industry—and their backers—and get to the roots of what is known and what is unknown about shale gas development. The next time you read an AEI article about shale gas development, beware its claims. It may turn out to be as leaky as a fracked well.
Take action to protect our water from the dangers of fracking!
Hugh–It apparently troubles you that someone who leans left on many issues believes that organizations like yours are putting ideology ahead of science.
(1) I do not write for AEI. I get zero dollars from AEI. My income is from my work health and risk through STATS at GMU. Nor do I get any money from the natural gas industry. Nor am I “right wing” or “conservative” as anyone who is familiar with my writing would know. I’m not ideological. I’m also a regular columnist for the leftwing Ethical Corporation based in the UK, and have written for The Guardian, contributed to a book by The Nation, and the even the quasi-socialist “Dollars and Sense.”
(2) The Cornell letter was not peer reviewed. Period.
(3) NRDC criticized the study for its estimates, which he believes–as does the Sierra Club and the Council on Foreign Relations–are wrong. The NRDC has called for more data–as have I–and as do many companies in the natural gas industry.
The difference between me and you/your organization is that I come to this with an open mind. I go where the science takes me. I’m am not reflexively trying to promote a pre-determined position.
If you care about the public interest–let’s public debate this. Let me know and we can move forward or airing all sides of the issue.
Jon Entine
runjonrun@earthlink.net
As Reagan used to say”here we go again”Big Oil is blitzing us with good news about”Fracking”we all remember BP’s assurances about safety in the Gulf and that they were prepaired for all contingencies.Ask the people in Dimock,PA who signed leases and now own worthless and higly polluted properties.Blown and contaminated wells,water that causes sores,hellish night and day Trucktraffic,strams polluted and the list goes on.Just like the coal industry touting “clean coal technology ,a total lie! We need a morotorium on fr
Jon,
You wrote: “I do not write for AEI.” Technically, that may be true but there is a very strong relationship between you and AEI which are you dismissing. A relationship that strong would surely be in your interest to maintain and could influence your thinking. Here are the facts:
1) You are (or were) a visiting fellow at AEI when you posted your blog piece
2) Your blog article appeared on “The American” which is the online magazine of the AEI.
3) The google search, site:aei.org “jon entine”, returns 1,220 results. For someone who doesn’t write for AEI, your name sure appears all over their website.
So, a statement like “I do not write for AEI” is a twisted truth at best. How many other of your statements are twisted truths?
I’m an 81year old lawyer. I grew up in the oil fields of Oklahoma. I worked in the oil fields when I was much younger, mostly in West Texas around Odessa. Fracturing and acidizing of oil bearing rock has been around a long time. In most cases, it was necessary to get the oil/gas out of the rock. It was also necessary to build roads to the well sites, lay pipelines to carry the oil from the well-head to the storage tanks, dispose of the salt water (a by-product of most oil production), and many other activities concomitant with oil production. All of these activities had some environmental impact. Disposing of salt water, which in the early days meant opening the gates and letting it flow downhill, had an obvious and immediately noticeable impact. But hydrocarbons, and oil in particular, meant cheap energy, and cheap energy meant unprecedented prosperity, here and abroad. The point is that there is environmental risks in oil/gas production, just as there is environmental risk in most all human activity. But the benefits derived from cheap energy more than offset the risks of environmental damage. Deep structure fracturing of shale may possibly pose some danger to ground water, but it is probably slight. Let’s not panic until all the facts are on the table. Besides, nature has a way of dealing with man’s pollution of the planet. I thought all of the oil/salt water polluted land around my old home places (Seminole, Bowlegs, St. Louis, OK) was ruined forever. I visited it recently and there were few traces remaining, albeit 60 years after.
With all due respect to Mr. Brockett, his comment that “…the benefits derived from cheap energy more than offset the risks of environmental damage.” is like telling an alcoholic that cheap whiskey will offset the cost to his family’s budget. There simply is no data to support Mr. Brockett’s generalization. There can’t be.
If the oil companies aren’t sharing with us what they are adding into the Fracking water. The concern I have is when the finished product of oil, gas, kerosene, diesel, or natural gas is burned these contaminants are spread even further.
We need cheap clean energy to fuel our economy. That is what fracking is providing us. One hundred years plus of clean NATURAL gas. Nothing is more natural than oil and natural gas. It often appears naturally in water sources. Gasland is a misleading hit job of a movie. We must be economically competitive, and energy independent. Otherwise we are dependent on Middle Eastern nations that are unstable and lead us into war. We cannot afford to lose the blood and money any longer. We are broke. Natural gas will eliminate dirty, dangerous coal and nuclear plants. It can also be used to fuel vehicles of all sizes. It is far cleaner burning than gasoline also.
I just want to clarify that horizontal hydraulic fracturing, the type of fracking that is being talked about, has not been around for years. Vertical hydraulic fracturing, a completely different form of fracking that is far less detrimental to the environment, is what has been around by years. Commercials that have been being put out by the oil and natural gas companies are deceiving because they say that fracking has been around for x amount of years. However, the technology for horizontal hydraulic fracturing has been developed more recently. It is important to get all the facts, and not just listen to what the big oil companies tell you. They have deep pockets, and obvious agendas. Also, it makes no sense to me that we would continue to frack before all the information of how it effects peoples’ health and the environment is found. Wouldn’t it make sense to research that first, rather than finding out that the effects are detrimental and irreversible after it’s already too late?
In respectful reply to Frank Drumm’s comment: In 1900 there were 36 deaths caused by automobile accidents in the U. S. Such deaths had escalated to 54,589 by 1972, declining to a mere 32,708 in 2010. The automobile has proved to be detrimental to the environment and the humans who operate them, yet there is no out cry to ban them. Why not? Because their utility exceeds their detriment. Thus it is with oil and natural gas and their production.
In response to Amy Shatters comment ( with due respect): The fracturing of oil or gas bearing rock occurs in the “production zone”, that is to say, in the layer of rock in which the oil/gas is trapped. The production zone usually lies many hundreds of feet and numerous layers of rock below any potable subsurface water zones. For example, the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the worlds largest aquifers, lies at an approximate depth of 400 feet in the north to 100 feet in the south. There are some shallow oil wells – 1000 to 2000 feet – being drilled in some areas of Oklahoma, for example, but most of the wells being drilled today are thousands of feet deeper. The fracking process is the same whether it occurs in a few feet of production zone, the case of a vertically drilled well, or, for example, in 1000 feet of production zone in a horizontally drilled well. Horizontal drilling has to do with exposing much more of the production zone to seepage of oil/gas into the well bore where it is carried to the surface by the pressure within the production zone, called a flowing well, or pumped to the surface by various means, a pumping well.
It is submitted that the statement, “Vertical hydraulic fracturing, a completely different form of fracking that is far less detrimental to the environment, is what has been around for years”, is a non sequitur in that concludes that horizontal fracking if more environmentally detrimental based on the writer’s conclusion that vertical fracking is less environmentally detrimental.
I am an environmental geologist that refused to get into the oil business even though that’s where the money and jobs have been during the recession. I knew that we are on the brink of popular opinion changing and people are starting to care about their impact on the environment. I along with my colleges have been working hard and are ready with the resources to help everyone reduce their footprint.
What we need from big organizations supporting environmental movements is not to step up against one part or form of getting natural resources (although the environmental impact is immense) and get moving on legislation and promote solutions… Better energy sources.
I searched for a while on your website before I found a place to comment.
I see a strong bias in your home page. Anyone or anything that disagrees with your stance is painted as “questionable at best”, yet I see unsupported claims, unsupported accusations, demagogue labels and scare words with shades of accuracy in several places.
You accuse your opponents of Bias. Going off the deep end in the other direction does not lessen the “confusion”. A carefully crafted presentation of only selected facts is one thing that has damaged the arguments on global warming. I see the same pattern on your site.
D Thomas, Thanks for the comment. In your assertion I don’t see you pointing out one inaccuracy in this post or on our site in general. All of our research, in the form of reports, factsheets, etc., is carefully footnoted and rigorously fact-checked. Yes, we do bring a point of view. We are an advocacy organization aimed at ensuring, among other things, continued public access to safe, affordable drinking water. We maintain that the risks fracking presents to our vital water resources do not outweigh the (short-term) economic benefits of fracking for oil and gas.
Thank you for this wonderful informative site. It is clear to me that a monopoly of all industry has occurred in the United States and perhaps elsewhere. One of the reasons monopoly was originally avoided in the US is because of the dangers posed by a single corporation governing of it. As Monsanto buys out all organic seed companies in the US, unnecessary McMansions become widespread, water becomes polluted, and our protective atmosphere becomes increasingly depleted, a horrible future awaits the generations after us. Thousands of new diseases, laws against planting seeds of any kind (as all of them will be GM and Monsanto forbids replanting), massive killer weather changes and no country side in which to take shelter in, are just some of the issues that will come about. It is no coincidence that children’s books are overwhelmed with post-apocalyptic themes. Such is art, always ahead of the ignorant masses.
I’m looking for information which supports a claim made by Food & Water Watch that radioaction fracking waste is being produced in Pennsylvania. In addition, if you can provide me with the specific locations in Pennsylvania that produced these radioactive waste it will be appreciated.