Gas-Industry Funded Report Says Fracking Made You $1,200 Richer

Categories: Environment

barnett.jpg
MyEyeSees
Is the gas industry mature enough to have a serious discussion with the American public about hydraulic fracturing, one that explores the benefits of domestic natural gas drilling but also carefully considers methane leaks, groundwater contamination, earthquakes and other potential risks that peer-reviewed research has linked to fracking activity?

Fracking has made you $1,200 richer!, says a new industry-funded report that doesn't address any of that stuff.

The report, released today by a consulting firm called IHS, found that the "unconventional oil boom" is making businesses richer, making consumers richer and creating lots of jobs, which presumably are also making everyone richer.

Currently, U.S. households are saving $1,200 a year thanks to the boom, the report says. It predicts that by 2015, savings will reach $2,000 annually. And by 2025, they will reach $3,500.

"The unconventional oil and gas revolution is not only an energy story, it is also a very big economic story that flows throughout the U.S. economy in a way that is only now becoming apparent," Daniel Yergin, IHS vice chairman, says in an accompanying press release. Yay!

But then, Bloomberg News had to go interview someone from the Environmental Defense Fund.

"If you're going to make the argument that there are benefits to developing this resource you have to also be prepared to make the argument that you're going to do everything possible to minimize risks to public health and the environment," Mark Brownstein, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg.

Minimizing possible risks sounds hard, let's skip the rest of that story and go to The Dallas Morning News' coverage.

"It's a positive story, and we're at the beginning of it," IHS Vice President John Larson told the DMN. The boom has been especially good for Texas, creating 576,000 jobs, but if anything stops the boom, it will be bad, according to figures provided to the DMN by Larson: "Larson said the economic benefits from the boom would be cut sharply if new regulations curtail fracking," and "Larson said he expects a spread to reappear between U.S. and foreign oil prices as producers keep adding wells and supplies." It sounds like someone has a little crush on Larson.

The report appears to be from a vacuum in which other, sadder reports about fracking in Texas do not exist. It's published just a few weeks after the Guardian profiled small Texas towns that were experiencing a healthy oil boom along with a devastating drop in water supplies.

"In Texas alone, about 30 communities could run out of water by the end of the year," the report says, citing data from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The towns had already been suffering from droughts for the past three years, with many industries to blame for wasting what water was left. But the large amount of water used in fracking each well has put yet more pressure on dwindling water resources.

And a UT-Arlington report published in July found that elevated levels of arsenic were detected at 29 water wells in the Barnett Shale. "It was clear in times where we found really high arsenic levels, you're up close to a wellhead," the lead researcher told Unfair Park shortly after his study was published.

My Voice Nation Help
30 comments
Dawn Wildfang
Dawn Wildfang

FRACKING is bad no matter how you advertise it. The $1,200 is total bull and they are trying to bribe ppl and fool them into forgetting they are poisoning the ground below them! Shame on them!

Russ Coffman
Russ Coffman

Does that include increased health costs and lower property values? Ask the people in Flower Mound.

Jacob Scott
Jacob Scott

I don't know I seem to be pretty rich from it. Thanks Tommy.

Frederick Szczepanski
Frederick Szczepanski

If an energy company has to promote their energy acquisition process by paid ads and celebrities, you know they're up to no good. I don't see solar panel companies trying to push their products on people.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

Let us all raise a cup and toast our great good fortune with a big refreshing gulp of LNG!

David S. Parkes
David S. Parkes

Will this pay for the repairs to my house as a result of earthquakes caused by fracking?

Brett Chisum
Brett Chisum

Is this because some people are charging others to witness the incredible flaming garden hose?

director21
director21

Where is MY $1,200? Once again, the oil and gas industry is just flat out lying, making up stuff out of whole cloth to cover its own ass because of its ineptitude. The industry is its own worst enemy. They are so incompetent that with all their money, experience, skills, education and market acumen they have been soundly defeated in every Dallas permit request for over four years. Worst still for them, they got slammed by a bunch of ragtag, unfunded, unorganized, tree-hugging environmental whackos who are inferior to them in every way.

If the industry is losing to a group like us, then just imagine how they would get slaughtered by any real challenger to what they are doing. I an waiting for pak152 to start speaking for the industry at these public hearings. Come to think of it, he may already be doing that judging by their "success" rate of .000 over the course of four years.

schermbeck
schermbeck

More disappointing than the study itself, the content of which you kind of expect given the source, is the wet-kiss coverage the DMN Business Section gave it, without any attempt to address the other side of the ledger. You'd think the last year of Trinity East battling never took place.

Sharon_Moreanus
Sharon_Moreanus topcommenter

Last time I got behind Barnett...let me just say it was dirty.

pak152
pak152

"And a UT-Arlington report published in July found that elevated levels of arsenic were detected at 29 water wells in the Barnett Shale
and as the press release from UTA noted "“This study alone can’t conclusively identify the exact causes of elevated levels of contaminants in areas near natural gas drilling, but it does provide a powerful argument for continued research,” said Brian Fontenot, a UT Arlington graduate with a doctorate in quantitative biology and lead author on the new paper."
http://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2013/07/Schug-water-well-contaminants-study.php

pak152
pak152

OMG! an industry funded study must contain all sorts of falsehoods. can't believe them at al.

Sierra Club, EDF and others opposed to oil and gas would never ever mislead us.

whocareswhatithink
whocareswhatithink

@David S. Parkes Considering earthquakes date back to B.C. You are on your own. Welcome to the dangerous world we live in.

On a side note, at least you might be safe from Tsunami

dingo
dingo

@director21 There are undoubted significant economic benefits associated with domestic oil and gas production. Whether or not it amounts to 1200 dollars per household is up for debate.

It is economics 101 that the amount is not going to show up explicitly on a plate at your doorstep.

Yergin is a Pulitzer Prize winning author. He is also probably biased in his current role.

Fudging the numbers, likely, but flat out lying?


director21
director21

@dingo In the real world there is only truth or "anything but the truth." There are no degrees of truth. Something is either truthful, or else it is false. Now, it may be not as blantant, in some cases as others, when something said is not truthful, but it is still untruthful.

Hey, don't blame me. I did not write the rules. And, I am not going to allow you, or anybody else, to re-write the rules to suit whatever agenda you might have.

If industry wants to say, "We got billions and billions of dollars from oil and gas production in the Barnett Shale", which in and of itself is likely to be a lie, "and that, averaged out, it amounts to $1,200 per person, though you did not actually get any of it because we got it all", then THAT might be a truthful statement. But, it is NOT the same thing as what was stated, and THAT is the difference.

Some people try to play semantics with words to fit their agenda, but in the end what people say is either truthful or it is not. The oil and gas industry seldom ever tells the truth unless the truth personally benefits its owners and operators. It has always been that way. It is an industry fraught with frauds and conmen.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@director21 @RTGolden1 @dingo Again, you are focusing on YOUR efforts, I'm applying my criticism to the anti-fracking movement as a whole.

By your own assertions in this thread, there is either the whole truth or 'not the truth'. Period.  End of story.  That is your assertion.  Much light has been made of the movie Gasland and the flaming tapwater, specifically an incident in the Denver area.  Specifically Mike Markham's well contamination was determined to consist of biogenic gasses coming from the 4 coal beds the well passed through and not from thermogenic gasses released by fracking.  Gasland, instead of presenting the whole truth, dismissed the state findings out of hand, and went ahead with proclaiming Markham's well to be contaminated by fracking.  There are studies by the Colorado Geologic Survey, the US Geologic Survey, and a 1976 study (long before fracking or even conventional gas extraction was even going on in the region) showing elevated methane contamination in the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer, from which all three Weld Cty wells drew their water.

As in my assertion above, the answers to this fracking dilemma will be found in rational discussion of all the available information, not in shrieking from the opposing extremes.

By the way, I've listed several keywords here which you can search and find your own damn citations.  I notice you demand PROOF of others, but I fail to see in your own comments where you offer any proof of your own.

director21
director21

@RTGolden1 @director21 @dingo Please show me where "lying, inflating, conflating and conspiring" is going on in the anti-fracing movement. I want PROOF, not just claims from industry.

Most of us work very hard to know the facts and speak the truth. We realize that getting caught in lies or manufacturing "facts" only denigrates our arguments and undermines our efforts. The very fact that we have won 100% of the battles we have fought in Dallas since 2009 bears witness to our integrity and our knowledge of the facts.

If we were truly making things up, then an industry will hundreds of billions of dollars would use whatever resources were necessary to discredit us. Instead of showing proof that we are doing what they do by stretching the truth, lying and conspiring they merely CLAIM that is what we are doing and they hope they can sell that cock and bull story to public officials. So far, industry has won ZERO battles in Dallas because we have won them all.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@director21 @dingo Truth and lies populate both sides of this debate.  What we need is rational discussion of the facts.  If you think the anti-frack side isn't lying, inflating, conflating and conspiring, you're either stupid, naive or only focused on your own objections and actions and ignoring the actions of those on 'your side'.  Personally, I lean anti-frack in urban environments.  I don't think we know enough about what is going on with the water, the ground, etc to intelligently weigh the risks vs. the benefits.  The big problem is, neither side wants to really know the facts, they just want to know what supports their particular agenda.

director21
director21

@everlastingphelps @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul @dingo @director21 What an idiot you are, everlasting one!

Yes, fracing companies are VERY BAD! They do harm to everybody else so they can profit themselves.

Money for D21 GOOD! Unfortunately, I have made ZERO money fighting this battle, and in fact have spent a good deal of my own money in this fight.

The difference between you and me is that you have been on the losing  side in the Dallas fight 100% of the time and I have been on the winning side 100% of the time. Your opinion probably matters to you, and it should, but it does not affect me in the least, as it should not.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@dingo @director21  

Don't worry too much about director21.  I have come to the conclusion that he is a curmudgeon.  Although he does come up with some good questions from time to time, he manages to speak past everybody thus avoiding any sort of rational debate on the subject.

alteredjustice
alteredjustice

@dingo Any evidence that the negative effects don't even out or outweigh the benefits?

It's real easy to just say, "There are benefits, duh stupid!" Not as easy to prove that said benefits outweigh the costs of, for example, drinking contaminants or going to the hospital to get medicated after drinking those contaminants.

dingo
dingo

@director21@dingoIt (the state's oil and gas industry) has also funded two of the wealthiest land grant colleges in the world for close to a century. 

"though you ***did not actually get any of it**** because we got it all" 

Evidently you ignored and/or do not understand the implications of my 'economics 101' quip. It is frankly absurd to postulate that participants in an economy which is a significant consumer of said production do not benefit from that production.

Who exactly is playing with semantics?

Why do I feel like I am lecturing a child?

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...