AP's "Spin" article & a response

A recent article from the Associated Press, "Spin overtaking facts in Marcellus Shale debate" by Kevin Begos, contains several assertions about the anti-fracking movement which Marcellus Protest--whose image is featured in the article--would like to address.

Firstly, the author cites spin on both sides of the debate in a manner that implicitly implies that anti-fracking activists and the gas industry are equally culpable of spin tactics. "[T]he public debate is turning away from reason," Begos asserts, immediately following this statement with a quote made by Gasland director Josh Fox at the recent Philadelphia Shale Gas Outrage rally. It is important to point out the obvious: The gas industry has millions of dollars at their disposal and strong lobbyists in Washington. In case it needs mentioned once again, our own Governor Tom Corbett took over $700,000 in campaign contributions from the shale-gas industry. Despite the fact that government is (ostensibly) "elected for the people, by the people" it is the voices of deep-pocketed corporate entities that are influencing the decisions of many of our policy makers and elected officials. By any estimation, this cannot be called a fair fight.

Secondly, the article states that "[s]cientists say advocates on both sides increasingly spin every shred of research to fit their own views, and ignore the bigger picture." They specifically cite the researchers in the Duke methane study who acknowledge gaps in their own data.

[Duke University biologist Rob Jackson] co-authored a report that went viral in May, showing that residential water wells near drilling operations in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale had disturbingly high rates of methane contamination.
"Our data has been used primarily by people opposed to fracking," Jackson told The Associated Press. "But that's not how I see our data. I think our data provides a mixed story."

The gas drilling industry insists that the process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, does not contaminate aquifers or water wells. Critics of the industry, who believe it does, rushed to embrace the Duke study.

The study of 60 wells showed high concentrations of methane in 85 percent of those that were within 1,000 yards of a drilling site. In a finding that pleased the industry, the Duke researchers did not find any evidence of fracking chemicals in the well water.

Jackson acknowledged that the Duke study didn't answer all the questions about the issue and that it needs follow-up. But that's simply the way science works, he noted.

Unfortunately, while we are waiting for further scientific research--which can take years to conduct--to follow up on these questions, frack wells are being drilled all over the state. One thing is for sure: Contaminated groundwater cannot be undone. Statistics show that water use in the US and globally is increasing, and projections estimate that by 2025 1/3 of the world will not have access to adequate drinking water. With this knowledge informing our decisions, does it make sense to put the drinking water of our state at risk, while we wait for further science to give us the most accurate picture of that risk? Sure, there are gaps in the science--but it is also entirely possible that the worst case scenario sometimes imagined by those of us in the anti-fracking movement could become our reality. Industry pushes ahead, fracking to extract shale gas and building an infrastructure for its export, regardless of the current science--the science that uncovers the fallacy of natural gas as a "bridge fuel," the science that documents significant, health-impacting air pollution associated with drilling, the science that that has found concentrations of heavy metals in water, the science that designates several of the ingredients in frack fluid as known carcinogens--or the need for further scientific research. It cannot be denied that fracking does indeed put water at risk. Replacing contaminated water by importing water from elsewhere into a community whose residents can no longer safely drink, bathe, or even wash dishes with their water is not a solution.

So, in the spirit of reasoned argument, let us answer the following question, posed by CMU professor Baruch Fischhoff as quoted by the AP: "What kind of gambles do we want to take?"

As a self-identified member of the anti-drilling movement and an individual who values reason, my reply is this--the answer to this question is clear. The risks Pennsylvania and the entire Marcellus region face--to our health, to our environment and our communities, to our quality of life--far outweigh the perceived benefits of Marcellus shale gas development. And to this question I also respond with another, which is this: "Who decides?" Who gets to decide what gambles we want to take: "We the people" or they the corporations?

Please make up your own mind by becoming informed:

The Duke University report cited by the AP"Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing"--read it and make up your own mind.

Our Resources page has links to several scientific reports, including water and health impact reports.