Oil & Gas Industry Plans A Media Frack Attack
Rose Colored Glasses To Mislead the Masses??...
Screening of pro-fracking "Truthland" turns hostile
By Daniel Robison
Credit Daniel Robison / WBFO
The Buffalo premiere of "Truthland" was marked by shouting matches, flaring tempers and a strong presence of police.
A recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University shows New York residents are evenly split on the issue of hydrofracking.
The survey comes hard on the heels of a new pro-fracking public relations effort in upstate communities.
Last week, Buffalo was the stage for a screening of “Truthland” – a film financed by the Independent Petroleum Association of America and marketed by a gas industry PR firm, Energy in Depth. The entire film can be streamed online for free.
The event, which featured a contentious post-screen panel discussion, highlighted how starkly polarizing the topic can be for the public.
“Just a Pennsylvania mom”
Before the house lights dimmed, the crowd at the western New York premiere of "Truthland" was told to be quiet and respectful. Any catcalls or outbursts were promised to warrant an ejection.
The warning failed to stop many in the crowd from laughing at scenes not meant to be funny.
The presence of three police officers in bulletproof vests pacing the periphery of the theater eventually muffled some of the giggles and dissent, allowing the movie to play mostly uninterrupted.
The narrator and main subject of "Truthland" is Pennsylvania dairy farmer Shelly DePue, who tells the audience she has a hydrofracked well on her Susquehanna County property. While the gas well is already present on her farm, DePue expresses a desire to scour the country to ask experts questions about the safety of fracking and if her family is at risk.
“If the real answers were scary, then so be it! At least we’d know what we were up against,” DePue narrates over idyllic video of the rolling hills and serene ponds on her dairy farm.
The audience never sees DePue's hydrofracked gas well.
"Truthland" presents itself as a documentary. Yet some scenes are scripted and others simulate events that DePue’s narration portray as unrehearsed reality.
DePue implies the film began as a personal project, stemming from a family discussion sparked while watching anti-fracking film "Gasland" in their living room. "Truthland" opens with a scene that essentially dramatizes this event. But DePue recently told a crowd in Southpoint, Pennsylvania that the Joint Landowners Association of America contacted her looking for someone to "star" in the film.
For most of the movie, DePue drives her Chevy around the country, interviewing academics and officials - spiral notebook in hand - to learn once and for all the “truth” about fracking.
This quest for "truth" stems from her family’s value system, she tells the audience.
“I’m not an engineer, a scientist, or a gas driller. I’m just a Pennsylvania mom," DePue says, in a folksy tone.
She adds, “What [is] the truth? The real truth? That’s how we came to make this little movie.”
The audience is not made aware of the film’s origins and funding sources until the end credits. One of the film's last title cards indicates "Truthland" was bankrolled by "natural gas companies."
Refuting “Gasland”
The Academy Award-nominated "Gasland" famously showed people living in territory affected by fracking igniting their tap water.
Much of "Truthland" tries to refute the claim that flaming faucets are the result of natural gas drilling or that drinking water is compromised by the practice.
“['Gasland'] said water contamination was a huge problem. The experts said it was not. I know which ones I believe!” DePue exclaims.
DePue is presented as an objective, unbiased character. But as the film progresses, her scripted narration represents a pro-fracking viewpoint.
The movie also makes multiple attempts to discredit the filmmaker behind "Gasland," Josh Fox.
“So much in 'Gasland' is half-true, unfairly presented or just plain false. And the way [Fox] told the story made him seem trustworthy. I was beginning to question Josh Fox’s motives,” DePue says. “[It] made me doubt the truth of the whole movie.”
A tense discussion
After the "Truthland" screening in Buffalo, a panel of gas industry representatives gathered on stage for a question and answer session, which quickly turned hostile.
Many in the crowd self-identified as anti-fracking. The event devolved into a series of shouting matches.
At one point, police were asked to restore order. One officer pledged to shut down the event if behavior doesn’t improve.
Panel member John Holko, owner of oil and gas company Lenape Resources, tried to defuse the situation. "Truthland" is not a perfect movie, he asserted. Instead it is a simplified portrait of a complex issue.
“Sometimes you have to take it to a level for people to understand. What you have is a film that was designed to take the same tact that 'Gasland' took the other way,” Holko said.
But the audience expressed concerns that "Truthland" could appear to be independent to viewers unaware of its funding sources.
After the panel discussion, Holko said the gas industry felt compelled to hit back after Gasland and director Josh Fox identified concerns with the technology. Holko has recently threatened to sue localities in New York that have enacted homerule bans on high volume horizontal hydrofracking.
Even with the gas industry's public relations offensive, which includes multiple "Truthland" screenings in the northeast, the debate over fracking in New York state is far from over, says Holko.
“Shelly’s film [depicts] a folksy girl going out to discover. It shows people there are two perspectives: Shelly’s and Josh’s,” Holko says. “What does that tell the audience? You may have your own perspective. Go out and get your answers.”
DePue came to the screening in Buffalo, but left without speaking to the crowd or media, citing an urgent need to return to her Pennsylvania farm. DePue did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Panel members mentioned that DePue's farm now sports four hydrofracked wells on her property. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection records on DePue's wells, including violations, are detailed online.
Meanwhile, "Gasland" director Josh Fox is producing a sequel for HBO. To bridge the gap between these feature-length films, Fox has released a short, "The Sky is Pink."
http://nynow.org/post/screening-pro-fracking-truthland-turns-hostile
You can follow reporter Daniel Robison on twitter @robisonrobison.
Fracking industry executive says 90% of Americans are 'nuts
Posted on January 30, 2012.
From a column by Lyle Hopkins in The Capital Times:
Wall Street and CEO culture in America is out of touch, arrogant, condescending, and those are probably their good qualities. Recent examples run the gamut, from snooty finance employees sipping champagne while mocking Wall Street protesters to a sign posted in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange proudly stating "we are the 1%." It's clear that our titans of industry are in dire need of an attitude adjustment.
One of the worst offenders is the energy industry. Case in point, the CEO for the Colorado Oil & Gas Association reportedly said of fracking opponents: "These nuts make up about 90 percent of our population, so we can't really call them nuts any more. They're the mainstream."
Lyle Hopkins is an energy and security analyst at the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute. He is also a former intelligence officer for the U.S. Air Force and led a 150-person watch center providing threat warning information to national leadership. He has a masters degree in Environmental Management and Sustainability from Harvard. This column was provided by the American Forum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization.
http://renewwisconsinblog.org/2012/01/30/fracking-industry-executive-says-90-of-americans-are-nuts/
TV Commercials and the Art of Deceit
Published Saturday, March 3, 2012 2:10 am
by John Rehill
At one time, saying, "I saw it on TV," added a degree of credibility to a statement. Of course that was long ago and short lived, but that hasn't stopped misrepresentations from being effective in terms of creating false public perceptions. Sometimes people hear what they want to hear and seek to have their biases confirmed, but one thing has been proven time and again; the more times your repeat something, the more people who will believe that it is true. For those with the resources to broadcast their messages repeatedly from the biggest platforms available, that dynamic often means the ability to manufacture consent - or at least indifference.
Albert Einstein said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former." We are creatures of habit and most of us live with this wild notion that things happen the way they are suppose to. In the big universal and spiritual sense, I'm not sure that it isn't true. But in the real world, where the early bird gets the worm and not turning the wheel or applying the brakes means you're gonna crash -- things aren't quite that simple.
I am not suggesting we should be suspect of everything, yet keeping common sense close at hand and remembering that just because something is said over and over again doesn't make it's true, would seem to be a good strategy. It also might be clever to remember -- "I saw it on TV" or the "internet," has migrated from being credible to being a joke.
TV, newspapers and the internet are still the venues the cons and swindlers use to bring the confidence game into our world. Perhaps we think we are protected regarding most of the information we get through the media because it is monitored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), but such is hardly the case.
The art of deceit is most often dressed-up as "trustworthy looking for trustworthy," and sharing a common goal. The mark (the one to be convinced), is swayed with props that suggest by sharing a perception, both parties will benefit or prosper.
Today, these tactics are often used by large corporations in effort to sway opinion that best serves their political agenda -- one that eliminates or undermines the rules and regulations that govern them. It is those industries that pollute the most that benefit from this strategy. I realized that last Sunday morning when ConocoPhillips sprung their latest commercial into my morning breakfast, as I struggled to keep its contents down.
In that commercial; there are two women at a farmers' market talking about energy that was found "here, under the ground" -- and how important it is to protect the environment. They said, "It will provide jobs and it's safe."
They were talking about fracking for natural gas. Sure it would be nice if these claims were true, but the talk of jobs is terribly inflated and it is very well documented that under no circumstance is it safe. Fracking is the most profitable method of retrieving gas for the energy industry, largely because many of its true costs are kicked down the line to be picked up by the community or society at large. Here are just two of the realities of fracking for gas and the horrible consequences in a clip from Gasland and also footage from A Neighbor to the Process.
ConocoPhillips' record is not one of clean energy, but of mass destruction. They are being sued by the North China Sea Branch of the State Oceanic Administration (SOA) for billions of dollars, after a series of spills in Bohai Bay that have caused widespread environmental damage. The corporation was ranked 13th among U.S. corporate producers of air pollution by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). They have been responsible for massive oil spills, multiple fatal explosions, South American human rights violations and toxic dumping lawsuits.
Conoco is a Fortune 500 company, the fifth largest private sector energy corporation in the world and is four times listed on Multinational Monitor's annual report as being one of the world's 10 worst corporations. ConocoPhillips has also won the distinction of having the worst environmental record of all oil companies except for Chevron. Chevron has earned what many environmental organizations have called the worst air, water and land polluters record on the planet. Although Exxon came in close on Chevron's heels, when Conoco wasn't there, Chevron has used every legal maneuver to escape what many call crimes against humanity.
None of this comes out in their commercials, especially in their "we agree" series. In them, two people sort of talk over each other, from different perspectives, assuming that they have really been on the same page all along and only needed to get to this point to really understand.
A $10.6 billion lawsuit that Brazilian prosecutors filed against Chevron Corp. over an offshore oil leak, might not get that point across, nor does there seem to be any agreement on the matter between the company and its victims. Brazil's Attorney General's Office found that Chevron and Transocean, the drilling contractor, were not capable of controlling the damage caused by the spill. "This is proof there is a lack of environmental planning and management by the companies," the prosecutors said.
Here is a clip from CBS' 60 Minutes.
Ecuadoreans who recently won an $18 BILLION marathon-lawsuit against Chevron for environmental damage done to their country, couldn't get Chevron to agree to anything. The ruling was contested and escalated into the tens of billions of dollars.
Chevron spent $2.9 million lobbying the federal government last quarter, eclipsing even Exxon ($2.6 million) and BP ($2.2 million), according to Senate disclosure forms, which seems like a remarkable ROI. ...... Maybe that's where "we agree" comes from, their masterful ability to find agreement with the politicians they purchase.
It is odd how those companies that do the most damage to the environment are the very ones who make the biggest claims to do the most for it in their ads. When watching a Mosaic mining commercial, you would think that phosphate mining is the best idea for the planet since Earth Day, though nothing could be further from the truth.
In one their many misleading commercials, there is a pristine green setting that is embracing wildlife along with claims of being scientist, environmentalist and custodians of nature. One only needs to use Google Earth to view central Florida's half a million acres of moonscape left by the miners that will be of little to no use to anyone for decades, if ever.
The phosphate companies are graced with loopholes that allow them to sign-off on a project without providing any reclamation, yet the job is classified as completed. The permits are designed to not payout on the royalties, that go to whoever is holding the mineral rights (quite often the state or county) -- so a variance is filed with an excuse as to why they can't perform the reclamation. That song and dance routinely grants forgiveness so land mineral rights holders can collect their royalties, but again, you won't see that in their commercials.
The tens of millions of dollars Mosaic spends each year on TV and newspaper adds aren't selling product for them. Much of their phosphate is already slated for China and India. What that money buys is public relations through propaganda, a perception as to what is being given against what is being taken, beyond what one sees with their eyes -- moonscapes on the ground, depressed economies against billion-dollar balance sheets, environmental damage, etc. It also gives government officials a story they can hide behind, while they give away the more than 20 billion gallons of aquifer water annually that the industry uses to extrapolate phosphate.
The commercials say "we recycle or reuse 95 percent of our water." What does it matter what one does with the 65 million gallons a day pumped from the ground, if everyday you take out that much water? What they are referring to when saying reuse is, they use it again to take the waste material away from their operations in big pipes to a giant stack where the waste will sit and the water will evaporate and do future generations no good as they struggle with growing populations and dwindling freshwater supply.
The truth is, there are bone valleys all over the world, much like the one in Florida. Millions of years ago, as the earth rose from the sea, entrapping and concentrating sea life to extinction, veins of condensed phosphate transforms. In most of the places in the world where these beds of phosphate appear, leaders won't sell-out their people's most precious resource, water, just so some industry can grubstake it -- enter the Sunshine State.
Deceitful commercials have become such a valuable source of revenue for the media, and a venue to manipulate political agendas, that it would be foolish to think it will ever stop. BP paraded a few hotels and business owners in their commercials so to get a picture of complete recovery. BP's recent $7.8 Billion settlement, to compensate for their responsibility in last year's Gulf disaster, is only a fraction of the cost for the damages that occurred, and will excuse them from having to address any more of the devastation to those who suffered. I don't believe I am alone in thinking, that settlement has already been recouped at the pumps. (The oil industry receives more than $20 BILLION annually in subsidies from the Federal Government)
What to do? If what you are seeing in commercials, in the papers or hear on the radio, is by your opinion false and misleading, contact the FTC and or the FCC. Share with them your dissatisfaction to the ad that was presented to you. Here is a letter from noted hydroecologist Dr. Sydney Bacchus, about the Mosaic mining commercials currently being placed with local medias. Any contact information you might need is there.
The networks and major print media will not publish what has been said in this piece because they are beholden to the revenue these industries are providing them in these strapped-for-cash times. Don't expect the government to get in their way either, for they are buying into the same phony sciences, which is quite often the only verbiage regulators want to hear, unless it effects them personally, because they are beholden as well.
I often wonder why we think we have to go the other side of the globe to look for enemies when there are clearly so many right here at home -- but again, you'd never know it from the commercials and that's exactly the point.
http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2012/03/03/opinion/tv_commercials_and_the_art_of_deceit/
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
On the very first morning of 2012, public relations consultants for the natural gas industry woke to headlines reporting that a fracking-related well had triggered a magnitude 4.0 earthquake in Youngstown, Ohio. Its shaking was felt as far away as Buffalo and Toronto.
Happy New Year, boys. Time to renew your contracts and jack up your spin fees.
The public debate over environmental and health risks associated with natural gas fracking (hydrofracturing) was one of the hottest environmental issues of 2011 in the Northeast. The news of the Ohio quakes can only spur efforts by opponents of fracking to ban or significantly curb the use of the controversial gas-extraction process.
The Christian Science Monitor in How fracking caused an Ohio earthquake notes that the quake was not caused by fracking wells themselves but apparently by an well used to inject waste fluids from the fracking process back into porous rock formations deep underground.
It's not the first time that Ohio had encountered seismic problems related to fracking injection wells.
The Monitor reports that a "string of quakes last year prompted the state to ban drilling new wastewater-injection wells within five miles of the well suspected of triggering the temblors. At the state's request, the well itself was shut down Dec. 24."
Ohio is not alone. In July, the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission banned wastewater-injection wells from a 1,150-square-mile area overlying key shale deposits because of increased earthquake activity linked to the wells, according to the Monitor story.
http://enviropoliticsblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/natural-gas-fracking-has-new-pr-problem.html
DRIVING FORWARD A UNITED INDUSTRY FRONT TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC, ENGAGE NGOs AND LEVERAGE MASS MEDIA, SOCIAL MEDIA AND GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY TO OVERCOME PUBLIC CONCERN OVER HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
As the shale gas and tight oil boom continues apace, one of the key obstacles threatening these resources as long term contributors to North American energy security is increasing public concern over hydraulic fracturing.
The unconventional oil & gas industry now faces scrutiny on a daily basis from the media, NGOs and the public on issues relating to claims about the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water resources. Additionally, the power of social media is allowing misinformation and the environmentalist agenda to be spread at an increasingly rapid rate. The need for a united front to project a transparent and accurate account of the process has never been more important to ensuring the sustainability of the industry and protect it from calls for intrusive regulation.
Because of this, devising a comprehensive media and stakeholder relations strategy, leveraging mass media, social media and grassroots community support to overcome public concern over hydraulic fracturing has become of central importance to the commercial viability of unconventional oil & gas operators.
Media & Stakeholder Relations: Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011 will bring together senior communications professionals from leading unconventional oil & gas operators, including social media industry pioneers and media and stakeholder relations specialists to drive proactive media relations strategies, stakeholder engagement plans, employee and stakeholder advocacy and crisis communications strategy to determine best practices for engaging the public on a positive image for the shale gas industry.
Over two days The Media & Stakeholder Relations: Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011 will comprehensively address the key issues in driving successful media and stakeholder relations and will also give delegates the opportunity to hear from multiple stakeholders including NGOs, the media and community representatives to glean industry-outsiders views of the issue.
Day one commences with an expert panel discussing media relations strategy and case studies providing effective techniques and pitfalls in developing comprehensive strategies for dealing with the media, educating the public and overcoming concern over hydraulic fracturing. The use of social media within the industry will then be examined, providing case studies of effective social media campaigns, examining how to best protect brands online, and evaluating the increasing importance of new media. Day one will finish examining case studies of successful community relations strategies from the US and transferable lessons from Canadian oil sands, the importance of stakeholder advocacy and in re-building community relations after an event.
Day two starts by discussing the importance of putting up a united front to protect the industry's position and develop a consistent message by working together and promoting employee advocacy. NGOs and their influence, strategies across traditional and new media and best practice for dealing with them will then be discussed, followed by a unique opportunity to hear from a multiple stakeholder panel of industry outsiders on the hydraulic fracturing issue. The conference will end with a discussion of effective crisis communications and the potential in using new media to minimize negative press and discusses the regulatory framework and how best to succinctly communicate this to the public.
The Media & Stakeholder Relations: Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011 is a fantastic opportunity for communications professionals at unconventional oil & gas operators to develop robust strategies for media, public, stakeholder and community relations and drive forward the industry's position.
http://www.media-stakeholder-relations-hydraulic-fracturing.com/
Ex-oil worker blasts shale gas industry
Last Updated: Dec 2, 2011 2:36 PM AT
Related Links
Shale gas executives vow environmental sustainability
Environmental groups mobilize against shale gas
Maxime Daigle worked on oil and gas rigs for seven years before quitting to devote his life to protesting what he believes are the perils of shale gas drilling.
Daigle spent his career in the oil and gas sector working in operations located in Alberta, British Columbia and across the United States.He started as a roughneck and worked his way up to drilling foreman.But he soon concluded the world's dependency on oil was killing the planet and he left the industry.
"We all have our hands dirty on it. It's just an awakening I went through that made me realize what I was doing was wrong and that I needed to try and make a difference," he said.
So Daigle moved back home to New Brunswick and went back to school to study electrical engineering with a focus on renewable energy.Daigle is one of the many citizens that are speaking out over fears about the shale gas industry.
There are nine companies that currently have 71 different leases to explore for shale gas. While the industry is in its infancy, it has turned into a high-profile political issue for Premier David Alward's government. The Progressive Conservative government ushered in a new set of regulations in the summer that were intended to quiet the growing chorus of criticism against the industry. Instead, there were more protests and some mining companies faced blockades from citizens unhappy with their presence.
The Alward government has promised that it will bring in a new Environmental Protection Plan in the spring. And Alward has committed, that if the shale gas industry is to have a future in New Brunswick, the provincial government will ensure it enforces the strictest regulations on the continent.
Regulations are not enough
But tough regulations are going to help save rural landscapes from mining problems, according to Daigle.
"Some rig managers will make you contain contamination and pick up everything at the surface. But I've seen many times where you're told just to cover it with dirt, fresh dirt so nobody sees it," he said.
The former oil and gas worker said he saw the negative impact that drilling was having on the environment as he moved higher up the corporate ladder.
"I've seen enough that I know a fair amount of what can and can't be done right with regulations," he said.
Daigle also tells a story about a time when a crew he was working with hit an abnormally large gas pocket that nearly blew up the well.
He said the crew pumped thousands of barrels of toxic drilling fluid down the well in an effort to contain it. However, that fluid found its way back to the surface through an unforeseen fracture.
"After four or five days of doing this, these farmers came on location. And they asked what was that black stuff that was coming into the river," Daigle said.
"And when we were wondering why we couldn't regain circulation of that well, this was the reason. Everything was going up into the river."
Environmental concerns
Daigle's concerns aren't new. Many opponents to shale gas wells have often pointed to high-profile problems in the United States where local water wells were contaminated or there was an upward spike in air pollution.
Those criticisms aren't being met without resistance from the natural gas industry.
Three shale gas executives and one industry official wrote in separate opinion articles this week for CBC News that protecting the environment is a top priority for them.
Two companies - Corridor Resources and Contact Exploration - have track records of working in New Brunswick.
And SWN Resources Canada, which is currently examining results from recent seismic tests, has said it will not attempt to extract shale gas if it cannot protect the environment.
Some in the scientific community have also downplayed some of the concerns raised by the anti-shale gas protesters.
Adrian Park, a geologist at the University of New Brunswick, has said problems won't come about if shale gas mining is done the right way.
Park said he believes the industry can mine for shale gas and protect the environment, if the proper regulations are in place.
"Once you go more than 200 metres down, the pressure caused by the weight of overlying rock actually seals natural fissures and fractures and if you're hydro-fracking deeper than that, then that natural permeable barrier should protect your surface water," he said
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/12/01/nb-daigle-shale-gas-concern-913.html
The Power of a Free and Fair Press
By Anonymous
Created Oct 7 2011 - 12:00am
Ian Urbina’s visit to campus Tuesday was a salient reminder of the power of the press.
In the pages of The Sun and in other publications, environmental activists have lauded Urbina’s investigative series [11] in The New York Times, which examines the risks and efforts to regulate the natural gas exploration process known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Previously, government and industry reports have assured that fracking is a safe and clean method of gas exploration. But Urbina has shed light on evidence of underground drinking water contamination [12], regulatory shortfalls [13] in toxic wastewater disposal and government concessions [14] to industry pressure.
Urbina’s critics range from gas industry backers who reject the preponderance of data against hydrofracking to individuals who call his journalistic integrity into question. For what is essentially a matter of weighing the facts — in news coverage and in scientific studies — the fracking debate has been rife with ad hominem attacks and petty attempts to undermine the credibility of journalists and researchers. Prof. Robert Howarth, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, faced such criticism [15] after he penned a study [16] last May exposing climate risks associated with fracking.
But what these critics fail to realize is that there is more at stake in this debate than reputation or personal interests. Urbina’s investigations have revealed information — much of it leaked from confidential government sources and confirmed internally by The Times — that would not have been privy to public scrutiny otherwise. Disseminating information undeniably benefits political discourse: An informed public is better able to articulate its views and compel the government to act in accordance with them.
In cases like the hydrofracking debate — where science, politics and industry are entwined in conflicting interests — a free press has the democratizing power to put information in people’s hands and let them decide for themselves. And when one party to an issue contests that information, a free press provides a forum from which to argue the other side.
The Constitution sanctions a free press, but the news media must make sure it is also a fair press. At a time where reliable news can be hard to find in the maelstrom of sophomoric Internet speech, media organizations must stick to the principles of good journalism. This means putting politics aside and digging deeper for the facts, finding and confirming reliable sources, and getting at the stories below the surface when evidence emerges to call a prevailing notion into question.
At the very least, Ian Urbina’s reporting — backed by documents and sources that both he and The New York Times deemed credible and fit to print — has strengthened public discourse on hydrofracking. No one will be able to say definitively whether fracking jeopardizes environmental and public health — until the practice becomes widespread, and scientific theories and risk assessments are proven true or false. It’s ultimately up to the free press to investigate these theories and report the news, without reverting to unsubstantiated back-and-forth claims.
http://www.cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2011/10/07/power-free-and-fair-press-0
Fracking satire
December 31, 2011
I wish to end the year on a high note – or at least go out laughing.
It has been a strange year for us in Gasland. We have hydrogen sulfide in our air and benzene our water, but both of those are “naturally occurring” and not in large enough quantities to be harmful and there is no such thing as “cumulative effects”. So even though the water makes us sick and the air makes us wheeze it’s better than living in say – downtown LA.
But something did change in 2011. Not only in the US but around the world, public awareness of the evils of fracking has grown. And the propaganda – I prefer to call it psyops – has been coming fast and furious. These guys think we’re really stupid My hope for 2012 is that they just keep this coming because it’s highly entertaining and great blog fodder.
Along the way, some artists and comedians have also had a little fun at the industry’s expense. No doubt I haven’t seen it all but here are some of my favorites.
In this first video, comedian Juliana Furlano from The Ironic News Report calls bullshit on gas industry propaganda.
Natural Gas Company Propaganda is BULL S*!T! The Ironic News Report Calls Them Out!
Don’t miss this hilarious send up of Terry the Frackosaurus from Stephen Colbert. I can’t post the video so just follow the link.
Anti-frack attack starring Terry the Frackosaurus
To promote fracking, Talisman Energy releases Talisman Terry the Frackosaurus, the funnest energy extraction-based character since Mountaintop Mining Manny.
In Australia it’s called “coal seam fracking” and these two comedians poke fun at the political hypocrisy behind it all.
The Hamster Wheel: Fracking with Alan Jones
This one isn’t satire. It’s a cool song by Ben-Ulric from South Africa. I was struck by how much the landscape in the video looks like western Garfield County — before fracking that is.
http://fromthestyx.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/fracking-satire/