Tag Archives: 2018

Where and How Did Our Oil and GasLand Begin–Do We Really Want It to End?

If you’ve ever had any doubt that movies influence, look no further than to consider the effects of this month’s movie, GasLand (Fox, 2010). It is difficult to imagine how a propaganda film that presents such a complex technical topic to a public audience could garner much interest, let alone stir so many in our nation toward irrational fears. However, as we have noted in our past commentaries, fearmongering is a great way to attract attention and to create public unrest.

Height of the Empire State Building, demonstrating the depth of hydrocarbon producing zones
Height of the Empire State Building, demonstrating the depth of hydrocarbon-producing zones in relation to surface aquifers

The central focus of the movie is hydraulic fracturing, an oil and gas well-stimulation technique. Say, what? Not to worry, you are in good company with millions of Americans who are largely ignorant on the complex advancements in petroleum technology.

I believe this is because of negative propaganda about “Big Oil” that politicians have promoted over many years. In contrast, most Americans have been widely exposed to, and have celebrated, the advancements in the technologies of our space program that extends beyond the Earth’s atmosphere—advancements completely dependent on oil and gas for its development and progress, and arguably less risky than our ventures far below the Earth’s surface.

Recent political statements about oil production, however, have been quite confusing—this from a US Senate publication (2014, pp.ii-iii),

Despite his Administration’s actions against hydraulic fracturing, President Obama’s rhetoric was correct in espousing the enormously positive impacts of America’s oil and natural gas renaissance . . . These remarkable benefits, which even the President proclaims as unequivocal, largely stem from and are impossible without one thing: the increased use of hydraulic fracturing coupled with horizontal drilling. However, . . . the Administration is seeking to end further development and use of hydraulic fracturing, ultimately negating all of the economic and geopolitical progress this . . . has brought to the U.S.

The problem with ending further development and use of our shale oil assets is that a more environmentally-friendly energy source is not available at present to replace what we now use. However, according to GasLand, hydraulic fracturing, colloquially called “fracking,” is creating toxic drinking water, along with the other well-known and more typical, nasty environmental disturbances that go along with oil and gas production. For some, fracking has  become such a concern  that it seems the great benefits it achieves for our nation and our way of life have simply been tossed under the bus. Yet, can we place the blame for all of our collective fears about this on the GasLand documentary?

Thinking about How We Think

Lest we get carried away in wonderment, let’s think once again for just a minute about how we think. Later I’ll shed some light on some surprising things such as: how long we’ve fractured the Earth to release hydrocarbons (oil and gas) and for what purposes, where we’ve found hydrocarbons before we began to drill for them deep in the Earth, and then I’ll pose some questions related to whether or not GasLand’s writer/director, Josh Fox, succeeds in making his case against fracking issues in the movie.

When we talk about propaganda (our theme for this year’s movies) and its positive or negative intent, we must realize that such communication exploits well-known understanding about how we humans process what we see and hear. Research on judgment and decision-making demonstrates that we’re biased in our thinking, often resulting in false beliefs and poor decisions (e.g., Kahneman, 2011). Some years ago, this understanding gave rise to techniques for teaching critical thinking skills to America’s children.

You may remember a time when a class in school was all about memorizing—memorize dates in history, formulas in math, vocabulary in language arts. Then educators began to concern themselves with “critical thinking,” realizing that students need more than facts and formulas; they also need to know how to deal with information out in the world. The quest to enable better information processing, to reduce bias in thinking and to foster better decision-making has extended to world-wide audiences, e.g., Lau and Chan (2018) state, “Critical thinking includes identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc.” among their web-based resources on critical thinking at The University of Hong Kong.

A number of definitions of critical thinking are presented on their site, Critical Thinking Web; and, among them, the following definition from Wade and Tavris (2005) seems especially useful for our purposes:

Critical thinking is the ability and willingness to assess claims and make objective judgments on the basis of well-supported reasons. It is the ability to look for flaws in arguments and resist claims that have no supporting evidence. Critical thinking, however, is not merely negative thinking. It also fosters the ability to be creative and constructive to generate possible explanations for findings, think of implications, and apply new knowledge to a broad range of social and personal problems.

Even though the habit of critical thinking is difficult to acquire, we can attempt to improve our critical thinking skills—essential tools of inquiry—when we discuss propaganda in our group. We have first sought to understand that propaganda is a communication technique and why people are motivated to use it. We have learned that propaganda can take many forms (e.g., posters, speeches, ads, TV commercials, editorials, videos), yet all are created to persuade. Since we have so recently (in 2017) looked at movies under the theme of persuasion, it is an easy transition to then turn to movies we can use to illustrate and examine propaganda.

Our movie for this month has been used as a tool to help teach critical thinking skills in educational settings (e.g., see O’neill, 2012). The film may not be a wise choice for this purpose, however, since the background required to evaluate the movie is extensive, and presenting it to students without this disclaimer may unwittingly introduce a biased perspective from a teacher. Further, if a teacher is personally challenged to present a non-biased view,  we can imagine that  “. . . teachers are able to foster critical thinking only to the extent that they themselves think critically” (Elder & Paul, 2010. p.38).

Activists protest fracking outside Gov. Cuomo's office
Activists protest fracking outside Gov. Cuomo’s office, New York City

We can all agree that this documentary is propaganda from its one-sided perspective (detractors have called it a mockumentary), but we must then decide whether its message is positive or negative based on the truth of its claims. Indeed, without background and experience, or without doing some research on the history and processes of drilling, completing, producing, and transporting oil and gas, along with research on various associated petroleum well-stimulation techniques, it may be difficult to come to any reasonable conclusions about the nature of the movie’s communication. Yet, even in researching, in the case of this particular topic, one must sift through material that presents limited facts, misinformation, and what seems to be unlimited opinions. It also appears that many people have become highly emotional about their particular viewpoints. All of this is to say that we face a challenge in watching this movie, while trying to diminish our own, as well as others’, emotional and cognitive biases.

The Petroleum Industry and Hydraulic Fracturing

Oil, as a substance and as an industry, is credited with improving the quality of life on every continent.
—McElwee, Beates & Weber

First, let’s learn more about the subject of this month’s movie: the oil industry and hydraulic fracturing. It is particularly important to clarify the innovation in this well-stimulation technique that has released the US from dependence on foreign oil, a situation that has been a plague since OPEC’s embargo in 1973-74 (Usborne, 2014; Jacobs, 2016).

 tested at Honeywell Aerospace in Phoenix
Aircraft engine being tested at Honeywell Aerospace in Phoenix, AZ

The industry we are discussing when we talk about “Big Oil” is an infrastructure industry essential to our modern world. Most of us are well aware of the gasoline and jet fuel that powers our daily transportation. Many, however, are unaware of the plastics and other pervasive elements of manufacture that rely on petroleum. It is said that over half of every barrel of oil is used to make seemingly limitless products that we use every day. To give you an idea, this is a small list:

Products made from petroleum
Floor wax Ballpoint pens Football cleats Tires
Upholstery Boats Fertilizers Antiseptics
Vitamin capsules Antihistamines Cortisone Rubbing alcohol
Solvents Motor oil Bearing grease Nail polish
Petroleum jelly Scotch tape Caulking Refrigerant
Contact lenses Aspirin Eyeglasses Artificial limbs
Asphalt and
roofing materials
Insect repellent Hair coloring Glycerin
Bandages Dentures Life jackets Heart valves

I read recently about a 2007 nationwide poll that revealed,  “72 percent of the American public does not know that conventional plastic is made from petroleum products, primarily oil” (“National survey reveals”, 2007).

The US Senate report, quoted above, also states (pp.97, 102)—related to our movies ,

Movie and camera film, cameras, tape recorders, video cassettes, compact discs, and much more are composed of petroleum. In other words, the entire movie industry is made possible because of fossil resources.
One should ponder how Hollywood would make money . . . if actors and crew could not fly to filming locations all around the world in planes and helicopters that are made from and run on fossil fuels. Anti-fracking activists may have social media, fame, and wealth on their side, but they do not have the facts.

Until recently, I had never thought about how far back our human history goes in using petroleum resources. Being from Texas, I thought the industry began with the gusher at Spindletop. Thanks to the research efforts of many who have documented this history over the years, we can easily find that use extends to the ancient world. Below is a table of highlights.

the development of the Oil & Gas industry
Ancient time The petroleum industry is first encountered in the archaeological record near Hit in what is now Iraq. Hit is on the banks of the Euphrates river and is the site of an oil seep known locally as the Fountains of Pitch. There asphalt was quarried for use as mortar between building stones as early as 6000 years ago. Asphalt was also used as a waterproofing agent for baths, pottery and boats.
Egyptians used it for embalming, and the walls of Babylon and the famed pyramids were held together with it. The Bible refers to a thick form of oil called “Pitch” which was used to waterproof Noah’s ark and the baby Moses’ basket. Natural deposits of asphalt occur in pits or lakes as residue from crude petroleum that has seeped up through fissures in the earth. (“How ancient people”, n.d.)
Ancient Greek texts describe how they poured oil onto the sea to set fire to their enemies’ fleets. The American Indians also used pitch to waterproof canoes and to make war paint and medicines.
1600s Early American settlers notice “burning springs” throughout Appalachia.
1748 Peter Kalm of Sweden published a map showing oil springs of Oil Creek, PA
1767 Sir William Johnson of New York recorded Native American practice of skimming oil
1778 Moravian missionaries reported “oil wells, with the products of which the Seneca Indians carry on trade with Niagara” in Western New York
1785 General William Irvine reported “Oil Creek, PA, has taken its name from an oil or bituminous matter floating on its surface”
1790 Nathaniel Carey skimmed oil from springs near Titusville, PA, and delivered it to customers by horseback
1791 Pennsylvania map showed stream named “OYL CREEK”
1795-1800 Crude oil quoted at $16.00 per gallon
1806 David & Joseph Ruffner drilled the first salt well using spring pole, drive pipe, casing & tubing near Kanawha River in western Virginia. The well produced oil instead of salt water.
1807 F. Cuming described collecting oil by blanket dipping in “Sketches of a Tour of the Western Country”
Oil from a spring in Oil Creek on the Hamilton McClintock farm sold for $1 – 2/gal
1846 Abraham Gesner produced illuminating oil from Nova Scotia coal, distilling a product he named “Kerosene”.
Swedish engineer Alfred Nobel used nitroglycerine, invented by Italian chemist Ascanio Sobrero.
1849 Samuel Kier marketed rock oil from his father’s salt well as medicine.
1850-1851 Kier devised a process to distill crude oil, producing “carbon oil,” and marketed it for use in lamps.
1854 George Bissell & Jonathan Eveleth paid Brewer, Watson & Co. $5000. for 105 acres of land (Hibbard Farm) in Venango County, PA, in order to collect surface oil.
Bissell & Eveleth organized Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company incorporated in NY – the first US oil company – and leased Hibbard Farm.
1856 Abraham Gesner’s North American Kerosene Gas Light Co. sold kerosene in the New York lamp oil market.
1857 Samuel Downer & Joshua Merrill mastered multiple distillations, chemical treatments, and cracking of crude coal oil (applied to crude oil 3 years later).
Pennsylvania Rock Oil Co. of CT leased the Hibbard Farm to Edwin Bowditch & Edwin Drake of New Haven.
1859 Colonel Edwin L. Drake’s well, drilled 69½ feet, struck oil near Titusville PA (first well deliberately drilled for oil) and launched the modern petroleum industry.
1901 Famous Spindletop Well drilled in Texas, leads to great Southwest discoveries of oil and gas.
1920s The first horizontal-well-drilling technology was developed in the 1920s, but the development of the technology led to limited use until the mid-1980s.
1948 Culminating several years of extensive laboratory and field study, Stanolind Oil and Gas Co. (later Pan American Petroleum) announced its hydraulic process to help increase well productivity.

First commercial hydraulic fracturing job took place in 1949 about 12 miles east of Duncan, OK.
The first commercial hydraulic fracturing job (above) took place in 1949 about 12 miles east of Duncan, Oklahoma. Photo courtesy Halliburton.
1964 “More than 400,000 treatments have been applied to wells located in practically every part of the Free World where oil and gas are found, including untold numbers of wells behind the ‘Iron Curtain’ ” (Hassebroek & Waters, 1964).

I should confess here that my thinking is likely considerably biased, having earned a Masters degree in Petroleum Engineering from The Univ. of Texas at Austin and having worked as an engineer for Exxon and Shell for over ten years. I choose to believe that I can think rationally about these topics, because I know some of what is involved. However, from an insider’s perspective I understand how difficult it is to bring even a drop of oil to the surface and how risky it is for those who work in operations in this industry, so I am more than sympathetic to those who have sacrificed life and limb to serve us with our myriad modern conveniences.

I also need to confess that I am biased because of the engineering work that Jerry’s dad performed as a pioneer in developing the technology of hydraulic fracturing. After earning his degree in Chemical Engineering at Oklahoma State University, W. E. Hassebroek worked for the Halliburton Company for 30 years, becoming Technical Manager of Hydraulic Fracturing at the research center in Duncan, OK. It is interesting to note a statement that he made in an article for the Oil and Gas Journal in 1964 (Hassebroek & Waters, p. 764):

There is no particular reason why present fracturing knowledge cannot be applied to others, such as oil shales and heavy oil sands, and it probably will be.

Hassebroek’s prediction has come to pass, as the current boom in shale oil and gas recovery can attest. This 6 minute video produced by Marathon Oil Company shows the unconventional three-step process of drilling, completing, and stimulating a well to enable production in heretofore unproductive formations. The first step is drilling down through layers of rock (vertically then horizontally), the second is perforating the encased wellbore to create holes where the fluids and/or gas can flow from the rock into the production tubing, and the last step is fracturing the rock using hydraulic systems to produce cracks for fluid flow pathways.

Challenges in Ruling Out Potential Causes of Water Pollution

As is demonstrated from documented history, oil has been found on or near the Earth’s surface for thousands of years—in salt deposits and in creeks and streams, and especially in the Northeast areas of the US during the time of early American history. This is exactly where the movie shows flaming water taps.

Even though contaminated water is of extreme concern, one may argue that tainted water has always been part of the natural landscape in that region. Or, maybe, the cause is, indeed, fracking fluid—exactly as Fox describes. If fracking fluid, is it possible that in any of the instances, one or more of the many Halliburton trucks on the property could have spilled its contents on the ground?  Have any of the people who have health problems, allegedly because of bad fracking jobs, sued the driller? If so, are public records available which may demonstrate valid accusations?

Or, is it possible that in the last decade, when Fox filmed these experiences, other local causes were responsible for the toxic water? Before rushing out to curtail production on vital resources, we must make sure we understand the situation. To be as effective as possible in curing a disease, it is always wise for a doctor to diagnose the problem correctly before applying remedies.

In my opinion, GasLand provides inadequate evidence and certainly not enough samples to prove that fracking causes contaminated water sources. Using the medical metaphor, the FDA would not wish to approve the drug without adequate trial to prove its safety and effectiveness for the disease. In this case, it would be especially imprudent to simply stop the fracturing process and go back to buying oil for American use on the international market.

Fox should first eliminate other potential causes, e.g., rule out the possibility that it is simply groundwater unrelated to hydraulic fracturing or any other artificial condition. Maybe something closer to the sources of drinking water is creating contamination. Therefore, it seems that investigating this phenomenon scientifically is essential to ;inning down sources of this flammable liquid.

Harvard study finds toxic chemicals in the drinking water of 33 states
Harvard study finds toxic chemicals in the drinking water of 33 states. Steve Johnson/Flikr.com

One recent EPA investigation of toxic water sources nationwide was performed from 2013 to 2015, looking for PFASs. Findings revealed that the drinking water of more than 16 million Americans is contaminated with these toxic chemicals, which can be traced to military and industrial sites. Reported in the Harvard Gazette (Feldscher, 2016), they collected more than 36,000 water samples from around the country, from

industrial sites that manufacture or use PFASs; at military fire-training sites and civilian airports where firefighting foam containing PFASs is used; and at wastewater-treatment plants. Discharges from these plants—which are unable to remove PFASs from wastewater by standard treatment methods—could contaminate groundwater. So could the sludge the plants generate, which is frequently used as fertilizer.

From this EPA investigation, we learn about real sources of toxic water. It seems to me that more research is needed that can identify not only PFASs present in our water, but other chemicals and their sources that may be damaging to our health. In some obvious places, we monitor the environmental impact carefully.  For example, when I look at the image at the top of this page—the ship channel at the Port of Houston—I think one might be drawn to imagine an environment that is not a healthy place for humans to work. However, the industry, the EPA and other agencies work to make sure that companies that run all the activities around the port are not injuring their employees. Since the beginning of our industrial age, people have lived and worked around such installations to provide essential products to serve the needs of others. Yet, none of us is immune to environmental health issues, no matter what the workplace, and many have nothing to do with the oil and gas industry.

I think of those who work at Halliburton handling the chemicals and breathing the air around oil and gas derricks, and wonder why they aren’t suffering from awful health conditions like the people in the movie. Certainly, Jerry’s dad didn’t suffer as a result, but maybe the chemicals used now are different. I would not now go out and picket in the streets against fracking because I don’t know enough to make such a decision. Do you?

Further, I can’t eliminate the possibility that, in all of its negativity, GasLand is a positive movie. If it brings more attention to water quality, how could that be a bad thing? As a side note on the film, part of Fox’s story is that he easily drove across the country to pursue his mission—and he includes a number of clips that show him driving his car. Ironic that the workers in our oil and gas companies are responsible for his transportation.


Fearmongering is the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue.

Critical thinking
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

A mockumentary (a portmanteau of mock and documentary) or docucomedy is a type of movie or television show depicting fictional events but presented as a documentary.

Propaganda is information, of a biased and sometimes misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Hydraulics is a technology and applied science using engineering, chemistry, and other sciences involving the mechanical properties and use of liquids.


About Oil. (2009). Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism (ORA). Retrieved from http://www.oil150.com/about-oil/

Barnes, C. (2007). The Money and connections behind Al Gore’s carbon crusade. Human Events. Retrieved from http://humanevents.com/2007/10/03/the-money-and-connections-behind-al-gores-carbon-crusade/

Elbein, S. (2011, Oct). Here’s the Drill. Texas Monthly. Retrieved from https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/heres-the-drill/

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2010, Winter). Critical thinking: Competency standards essential for the cultivation of intellectual skills, part 1. Journal of Developmental Education, 34 (2), p.38. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ986272.pdf

Epstein, A. (2013). GasLand II’s Luddite slander of ‘fracking’ is the latest technophobe attack on progress. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/07/19/gasland-iis-luddite-slander-of-fracking-is-the-latest-technophobe-attack-on-progress/#3c51d5ec3187

Feldscher, K. (2016, Aug 9). Unsafe levels of toxic chemicals found in drinking water of 33 states. Harvard Gazette. Retrieved from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/08/unsafe-levels-of-toxic-chemicals-found-in-drinking-water-of-33-states/

Fox, J. (Director/Writer/Actor). (2010). GasLand (Motion Picture). USA: International WOW.

Hassebroek, W., & Waters, A. (1964). Advancements through 15 years of fracturing. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 16(07), pp. 760-764. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/801-pa

How ancient people and people before the time of oil wells used petroleum. (n.d. ). State of Louisiana Dept of Nat. Resources. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/2/ancient_use.html

Hydraulic Fracturing: The Process. (2011). FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry. Retrieved from https://fracfocus.org/hydraulic-fracturing-how-it-works/hydraulic-fracturing-process

Jacobs, M. (2016, May 15). America’s never-ending oil consumption: Why presidents have found it so difficult to ask people to just use less. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/american-oil-consumption/482532/

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kelly-Detwiler, P. (2013). Shale leases: Promised land. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/01/03/shale-leases-promised-land/#401a26c26810

Larson, E., & Wiles, R. (2014). Determining methane leaks is key to climate goals. Climate Central. Retrieved from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-goals-priority-is-methane-leaks-17854

Lau, J., & Chan, J. (2018). Defining critical thinking. Critical Thinking Web. Retrieved from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/definitions.php

McElwee, N., Beates, S., & Weber, D. (2009). About Oil. Oil150.com. Retrieved from http://www.oil150.com/about-oil/

National survey reveals more than 70% of Americans don’t know plastic is made from oil.  (2007, Apr 20), BusinessWire. Retrieved from https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20070420005536/en/National-Survey-Reveals-70-Americans-Dont-Plastic

Obama, B. (2014, Oct 2). Remarks on the Economy at Northwestern University.
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/10/02/president-obama-delivers-remarks-northwestern-university#transcript

O’neill, J. (2012). Fracking: In the end, we’re all downstream. Rethinking Schools. Retrieved from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/26_04/26_04_oneill.shtml

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Soraghan, M. (2011). Groundtruthing Academy Award Nominee ‘Gasland’. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/24/24greenwire-groundtruthing-academy-award-nominee-gasland-33228.html

Usborne, D. (2014). Fracking is turning the US into a bigger oil producer than Saudi Arabia. Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fracking-is-turning-the-us-into-a-bigger-oil-producer-than-saudi-arabia-9185133.html

Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (2005). Psychology (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wells, B. (2018). This week in petroleum history, March 12 to March 18: March 17, 1949 – first commercial application of hydraulic fracturing. American Oil & Gas Historical Society. Retrieved from https://aoghs.org/this-week-in-petroleum-history/march-14/

Wikipedia contributors. (2018). Critical thinking. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_thinking&oldid=832417637

GasLand: I’m not jumping on a runaway bandwagon

When settling down to watch a documentary film, I remind myself of two important things:

  1. Rarely does a documentary film tell the whole story.
  2. People believe what they want to believe.1

It was with this mindset that I watched GasLand (Fox, 2010), not just with an open mind, but also with an inquisitive one. GasLand presents an up-and-close narrative on the surmised ramifications of hydraulic fracturing, “fracking,” and how this well-stimulation technology negatively affects America’s habitat. Lauded by film critics, GasLand received a nomination in 2011 for Best Documentary Feature by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. That recognition along with its 97% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes must please the film’s writer/director, Josh Fox, and those who support him.

However, before I enthusiastically jump on the anti-fracking bandwagon, my above-mentioned personal documentary-viewing guidelines require me to pause for a just a minute or two to discuss my two reminders.

Rarely Does a Documentary Tell the Whole Story

Josh Fox would have his audience believe that nothing good comes out of fracking, the practice of improving oil and gas extraction from under the ground by using hydraulic well-stimulation. It appears that the documentary aims to strike several emotional chords among the audience: chords of sympathy for victims who behold fracking as damaging to their well-being, chords of anger towards giant, impersonal oil and gas companies, and chords of grave concern for Mother Earth. If only it were that simple.

Indeed, balanced research on fracking reveals surprising positives that were conspicuously left out of GasLand. Because of using fracking technology, the US benefits from a healthier state of energy reserves. Oil production in the US has sharply increased, along with resulting (non-crude) exports and national reserves. In the opposite direction are trade deficits, imports, prices, and carbon dioxide emissions. All this bodes well for national security and the economy.

As for Mother Earth and her little guy, Keith C. Smith, former US Ambassador to Lithuania, had this to say (2014) [I address Russia later in this essay]:

Major environmental groups in Europe, particularly in France and Germany, have taken Russian warnings to heart, and also those of American self-described environmentalists, such as Josh Fox, producer of GasLand and its sequel, GasLand II. Both of these films are filled with unproven assertions that there is scientific evidence that fracking is a major danger to the environment. The Gasland films have been circulated widely in Europe, including twice in the European Parliament. Every anti-fracking claim made by an American group, no matter how tenuous the scientific evidence, is quickly repeated by European opponents of fracking, and then carried over European television networks through the RT (Russia Today) channel. RT receives its editorial guidance directly from political advisors in the Kremlin.

The documentary FrackNation (McAleer, McElhinney, & Segieda, 2013) [MoviesonChatham will view and discuss this movie next month] confronts GasLand’s claim that fracking results in contaminated water. Aside from FrackNation, studies also conducted by the EPA also cast doubt on such a global assertion.

Dozens of clashing studies have examined whether fracking contaminates water, and the ambivalent conclusions of the latest report have allowed both advocates and critics to claim some vindication. Katie Brown, spokeswoman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America’s Energy in Depth (EID) unit, says (Valvovici & Gardner, 2015),

The report contradicts the most prevalent claim from anti-fracking activists, which have made ‘water contamination’ the very foundation of their campaign against hydraulic fracturing.

We all want to see lush green meadows, dense forests of trees, healthy oceans brimming with marine life, fertile plains, meandering rivers flowing through picturesque mountains. However, at the same time, we demand cars, trains, planes, and all things that go. We expect machines to aid or replace manual labor. Americans are hopelessly dependent on electricity generation, heating, and the synthetic products that touch nearly every aspect of daily life. To make all that possible, we need an almost unlimited supply of oil and gas. Thus, right now, there is no other choice but to drill into the Earth to extract that valuable commodity.

Scientists, mainly engineers and geologists, have devised multiple ways to do this. Fracking, in particular, is essentially controlled pressure blasts under the ground to release gas from dense, otherwise-unproductive rock. The technique has been successful in acquiring large amounts of oil and gas, yet it is distressing to those who are anxious about unintended consequences such as water contamination. Hence, the endless differences of opinion over how to both protect our planet and capitalize on its resources. The struggle for a careful balance between the two sides encompasses grassroots environmentalists, gas companies, consumers, and politicians.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Getty Images.

Those who own and control the land, and those who own and control the methods of extracting oil and gas, exercise enormous power and stand to gain astronomical wealth. Consider the powers-that-be in the oil-rich Middle East. King Salman of Saudi Arabia has a personal fortune of $17 billion (Varandani, 2017). In the emirate of Abu Dhabi, its capital city, also the capital of the United Arab Emirates, became one of the richest cities on Earth. In Iran, a few hundred enjoy extravagant lifestyles since 60% of the country’s treasures are theirs. In Iraq, a small percentage of the population  is similarly privileged with the most luxurious of lives provided by their monopoly on the country’s oil revenue. In Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, only two decades after striking gas in 1971, invested $20 billion into liquefying gas and exporting it. Qatar’s wealth then skyrocketed to the point where the average income is $125,000, which is the highest in the world. Oil reserves, therefore, are a strong indicator of prosperity, but it is the government that determines whether the revenue from it is available exclusively for the elite as in Iraq and Iran, or for the citizenry as it is in tiny Qatar.

Russia, being Russia, is determined to dominate the oil situation in Europe. Ambassador (ret.) Smith chimed in once more: anti-fracking activists helped Putin reach his goal for Russia (2014):

Russian television regularly highlights and promotes opposition to fracking, particularly when carried out by Western firms outside of Russia. Apparently, the use of fracking technology by Russian firms is safe and effective only when approved by the Kremlin.
A respected Russian economist, who must not understand the Kremlin’s political line, was recently quoted as saying,

Do you know what is now helping Russian gas in Europe? It is the European environmental lobby, which inon freezing the development of shale gas resources, thus restraining the growth of domestic production in Europe. Why the Europeans agreed to this, I do not know the answer. It is difficult to understand.
Such honesty by a Russian technocrat is in major contrast to the political line of the Kremlin and that of Russia’s gas monopoly exporter, Gazprom.

In summary, unsubstantiated fear of hydraulic fracturing that is being promoted in much of Europe threatens to keep the region dependent on powerful and non-transparent foreign economic and political interests.

While we are distracted by Robert Mueller’s never-ending investigation on possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, President Vladimir Putin is working on his main objective—that is to make the U.S a weaker, dependent country From Mooney (2017),

[Representative Lamar] Smith and [Representative Randy] Weber quote sources saying the Russian government has been colluding with environmental groups to circulate “disinformation” and “propaganda” aimed at undermining hydraulic fracturing. Commonly called fracking, the process makes it possible to access natural gas deposits.

A former general of NATO is quoted as saying, Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas.
The Russians are able to do this in sneaky ways. They are able to launder money through Bermuda where donors do not have to be listed. ‘They pass along reports that Russia apparently funnels the money through a Bermuda-based “shell company” known as Klein Ltd. Tens of millions of dollars are moved from Russia through Klein ‘in the form of anonymous donations’ to a U.S.-based nonprofit called the Sea Change Foundation.’ The money, the congressmen write, then is moved in the form of grants to U.S. environmental organizations.

It is interesting to note that the man behind the Sea Change Foundation is Nat Simons, who is often seen sailing his Yacht across the San Francisco Bay. So absorbed is Mr. Simons in his ideals that it does not occur to him that his daily commute leaves a rather large carbon footprint. The fact that imported gas is more expensive does not matter to him either, for his immense wealth enables an irrelevance to cost. In his quest to suppress his own country’s energy independence, Nat Simons does not seem to care about economic opportunity for the working class (Hackbarth, 2016).

If successful, an anti-fracking campaign is depriving Americans of good-paying jobs and affordable, dependable energy,’ Loris said. ‘Despite smears and outright lies from environmental activists, smart drilling and energy extraction technologies have been proven to be safe.’

Hillary Clinton illustration by John Ritter
Illustration by John Ritter

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was well aware of all this. She was quoted by Newsweek as saying (Mooney, 2017),

We [the State Department and the U.S. government] were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand up against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of that money supporting that effort was coming from Russia.

When she was secretary of state, Clinton, sought to change this dependence. Recognizing its tremendous economic potential for many countries, Clinton encouraged fracking all over the world. Vice President Joe Biden supported this mission (Blake, 2014).

Following the Crimea crisis, the Obama administration has also been pressing Eastern European countries to fast-track their fracking initiatives so as to be less dependent on Russia. During an April visit to Ukraine, which has granted concessions to Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell, Vice President Joe Biden announced that the United States would bring in technical experts to speed up its shale gas development. ‘We stand ready to assist you,’ promised Biden, whose son Hunter has since joined the board of a Ukrainian energy company. ‘Imagine where you’d be today if you were able to tell Russia: “Keep your gas.” It would be a very different world.’

It was when presidential candidate Bernie Sanders came along that Clinton became a public opponent of fracking. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then the Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, could only do so much to push the nomination toward Hillary. The Presidential hopeful needed to bring Sanders’ voters, most of them environmentalists, into the fold. Economic opportunities are all too often casualties when politicians decide that holding on to power is more important than fortifying citizens.

People believe what they want to believe.

We tend to accept information that confirms our prior beliefs and ignore or discredit information that does not. This confirmation bias settles over our eyes like distorting spectacles for everything we look at.
—Kyle Hill

Josh Fox, who wrote, produced, directed, filmed, and narrated GasLand, obviously is strongly opposed to fracking. Naturally, he gravitates towards what validates his beliefs. We are all like that to some degree. We allow ourselves to be primed by those in accordance, and rationalize this convenience with convictions. We believe what we want to believe.

Rarely are minds changed in a world where actions often detach from opinions. Below are few instances among countless where opinions and actions are at odds with each other when it comes to environmental issues.

  • Nat Simons and his yacht
    Nat Simons, major contributor to environmental causes, commutes to work on a gas guzzling yacht.

    The aforementioned Nat Simons’ yacht is a 54-foot one, with a 1550 horsepower craft with a 550 gallon fuel tank. He appears to have no qualms about this while pushing for a carbon tax which would drive energy costs higher, and raise the price of oil and gas worldwide. From 2007 to 2012, the billionaire’s Sea Change Organization gave more than $173 million to groups that would push a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system or for other regulations that helps both the Russians and his own green energy business interests. Yet, it is the yacht among other indulgences of Nat Simons’ that screams hypocrisy.

  • Park Foundation with $366 million in assets is run by the anti-fracking zealot Adelaide Park Gomer (Shepstone, 2014). She has a high opinion of herself as a steward of the environment and wrote a bleak poem to express her feelings:

Islands and forests paved over forever
By asphalt and buildings while mankind endeavors
To replace nature with ugly big boxes and towers,
Golden arches, Disney worlds, a banquet of horrors

Yet, it is her manipulation of media that makes her a conniver. Popular media sources such as Huffington Post, Mother Jones, and Climate Desk have allowed Adelaide Park Gomer to promote her agenda in a devious way.

A Park Foundation-supported anti-fracking study was reproduced by a Park-funded news organization. It was then further disseminated via Twitter by the maker of Park-backed anti-fracking movies! This self-serving cycle involves enhancing research by Cornell Professor Robert Howarth, whom Adelaide Park Gomer finances. With the Park Foundation’s focus on New York, its people have little chance of benefiting from the economic boom fracking would bring to that state.

Hilarious isn’t it, that Gomer’s daughter, Alicia, planned her wedding as eco-friendly down to the flowers. Yet, while this is admirable, it is the honeymoon flight to Tahiti that left a carbon footprint that overwhelmed the tiny environmental savings in the green wedding Gerber, 2003). What would be nice is support for domestic energy so that more Americans can afford a luxurious honeymoon.

Gore's $9 mil dollar ocean-view villa in Montecito, CA.
Gore’s $9 mil dollar ocean-view villa in Montecito, CA.

We are all too familiar with celebrities alarming us with environmental concerns: Actor Leonardo DiCaprio, former Vice President Al Gore, and Prince Charles in England are a few. Yet, we have seen Leo DiCaprio take six private flights in six weeks. “A plane for one, taken once a week, hurts the environment far more than what regular people who ‘don’t believe’ in climate change can do” (Marcowicz, 2016). We saw Al Gore make untold millions of dollars from his documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth (2009), and now watch him guzzle energy like never before (“Al Gore’s Climate Change Hypocrisy,” 2017). While the Prince of Wales lectures his subjects to “tread more lightly on this planet,” his many chartered jets, and use of the royal train pulled by a steam engine show a proclivity for luxury travel (Bower, 2018).

While people champion their causes, they easily overlook the effects on people who are simply responsible people, working to earn a living wage. Working folk cannot possibly match the prowess of big foundations, nor do they have the resources of luminaries. May the United States of America always be a country where the people’s desire to tap into economic potential is never suppressed by the elites.

After a pause, a realization occurs that jumping on any runaway bandwagon takes me away from a place where I can clearly see what people do. Actions speak louder than words. It is what people do, and not what they say, that is revealing.


1 German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said, “A person hears only what they understand.”


Confirmation bias
Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or “my side” bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses.


Al Gore’s climate change hypocrisy is as big as his energy sucking mansion. (2017, Aug 3). Investor’s Business Daily. Retrieved from https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/al-gores-climate-change-hypocrisy-is-as-big-as-his-energy-sucking-mansion/

Blake, M. (2014, Sep/Oct). How Hillary Clinton’s State Department sold fracking to the world. Mother Jones. Retrieved from https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron/

Bower, T. (2018, Mar 20). Charles and Camilla’s plot to slur Diana as a scheming hysteric. The Daily Mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5524635/Charles-Camillas-plot-slur-Diana-SCHEMING-HYSTERIC.html

Clemente, J. (2016, Mar 13). Hillary Clinton’s mistake on fracking for natural gas. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/03/13/hillary-clintons-mistake-on-fracking-for-natural-gas/

Gerber, S. (2003, May 8). How to marry your sweetheart and love the planet. Grist. Retrieved from https://grist.org/article/nice-day-for-a-green-wedding/

Hackbarth, S. (2016, Jul 12). Fracking saved middle class families $480 in lower gas prices in 2015. US Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved from https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/fracking-saved-middle-class-families-480-lower-gas-prices-2015

Hanson, V. (2017, Jun 6). It’s the hypocrisy, stupid. National Review. Retrieved from https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/hypocrite-democrats-lecture-country-exempt-themselves-resemble-jimmy-swaggart/

Hill, K. (2018). Kyle Hill Quotes.  BrainyQuote. Retrieved from https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/kyle_hill

Marcowicz, K. (2016, Jan 24) New York Post. Retrieved from

McAleer, P., McElhinney, A., & Segieda, M. (Directors). (2013). FrackNation: A journalist’s search for the fracking truth (Motion Picture). USA/UK: Magnet Releasing.

McNicoll, B. (2015, Jul 10). Meet billionaire hero of the left Nat Simons. Human Events. Retrieved from http://humanevents.com/2015/07/10/meet-billionaire-hero-of-the-left-nat-simons/

Mooney, K. (2017, Jul 11). Putin is funding green groups to discredit fracking. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredit-natural-gas-fracking-635052

Roston, E. (2017, Jan 10). Putin’s other American propaganda effort: Anti-fracking news: Russia is no longer the world’s largest gas producer and isn’t happy about it. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-10/putin-s-other-american-propaganda-effort-anti-fracking-news

Shepstone, T. (2014, Aug 4). The Park Foundation palace and its poet laureate. Natural Gas Now. Retrieved from http://naturalgasnow.org/park-foundation-palace-poet-laureate/

Smith, K. (2014, Jan 5). Gasland, Russia and hysteria regarding hydraulic fracturing. American Diplomacy. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2014/0105/op/op02smith_frac.html

Thomas, T. (2014, Aug 16). Big green hypocrites—Part III. Quadrant online. Retrieved from https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/08/big-green-hypocrites-part-iii/

U.S.  Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. (2015,  Jun 1) The Chain of environmental command: how a club of billionaires and their foundations control the environmental movement and Obama’s EPA. Minority Staff Report. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/FINALREPORT73014

Valvovici, V. & Gardner, T. (2015, Jun 4). Fracking not a “widepread risk” to drinking water, U.S. EPA finds. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-not-a-widespread-risk-to-drinking-water-u-s-epa-finds/

Varandani, S. (2017, Mar 1). King Salman net worth 2017: Saudi king arrives in Indonesia, to visit Southeast Asia’s biggest mosque Istiqlal. International Business Times. Retrieved from  http://www.ibtimes.com/king-salman-net-worth-2017-saudi-king-arrives-indonesia-visit-southeast-asias-biggest-2499778

Charlie Wilson’s War: Main Characters and Misleading Propaganda

When presented with the original script of Charlie Wilson’s War (Nichols, 2007), Texas bon vivant Joanne King Herring (played by Julia Roberts in the movie) keeled over and nearly choked, for the last scene was a video clip of the Pentagon burning on September 11, 2001. What was the cause of her extreme reaction? Outrage over potential misleading propaganda? Continue reading Charlie Wilson’s War: Main Characters and Misleading Propaganda

Their Finest: Lissa Evans Celebrates Ealing Studios’ Propaganda Filmmaker

Ordinary people are capable of the extraordinary. British author Lissa Evans believed that with her heart and soul and set out to prove it by creating her own piece of greatness. The road to achievement is often paved with books; and Lissa, an avid reader, navigated her own course.

Evan’s book, The Finest Hour and a Half, from which this month’s movie is adapted, puts the reader in London as the winds of war are howling from Germany. All cinemas are closed in 1939 as Londoners brace themselves for an onslaught of attacks from across the Channel. Continue reading Their Finest: Lissa Evans Celebrates Ealing Studios’ Propaganda Filmmaker

Leni Riefenstahl: Extraordinary Talent Tainted by Heinous Objectives

Leni Riefenstahl. Never heard of her. A crash course was necessary indeed. Fortunately, I work at MoviesonChatham, a research and writing group for film groups, critics and fans. This eclectic group provides ample opportunities for learning curves. The eye-opening quest to learn about this obscure woman left me feeling concerned about the fact that I, a college educated woman who is never without a book, had never, not once, heard of Leni Riefenstahl.

Then again, where would I have crossed paths with Riefenstahl, or her legacy? Continue reading Leni Riefenstahl: Extraordinary Talent Tainted by Heinous Objectives

Propaganda: Activating Flawed Ideologies

Regarded by cinema historians as ‘the best propaganda film of all time,’ and a film that continues to inspire violent debate, Triumph of the Will linked Riefenstahl forevermore in the public record with fascism and Hitler.
—Felicia Feaster, Turner Classic Movies

Neither is there anything to be gained by ignoring her skill as a filmmaker, her place in film history, or her influence. Rather, we hope that this retrospective . . . will contribute to a discussion of the unsettling power of cinema and the relationship between documentary and propaganda, as well as the complex but crucial interplay of aesthetics and ideology.
—Leni Riefenstahl • UCLA Retrospective, UCLA Film and Television Archive

Throughout this year as we examine the theme of propaganda, it is useful to introduce a few simple concepts along the way that can help us to see why a film may fit into this theme, and if it does, to decide whether or not its communication succeeds in its intended influence given its design. Defining propaganda can help us with the first task, so that is where we will begin. Continue reading Propaganda: Activating Flawed Ideologies