Videos conflict with @tammierosen explanation for excluding ticket-holding farmers at #TFF2013 @Gaslandmovie II premiere. Her explanation:

“Gasland Part II had its World Premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival. Guests that had purchased advance tickets and were in line for the film 30 minutes prior, as our ticket policy states, were admitted into the screening. Once the house was at capacity, the remaining ticket holders who had not been in line prior to 30 minutes were unfortunately not able to be accommodated in the theater.”

One can have ground rules for behavior at an event, but excluding potential critics before the fact and stifling open discussion is not a path toward progress. 

I’ve had my own experience dealing with a disruptive appearance by Phelim McAleer (more here), the “Frack Nation” filmmaker accompanying the batch of Marcellus-region farmers and landowners who had tickets for the event. So I recognize the risks, but closing the doors to discussion is not solution. This is particularly true given that McAleer’s film-making approach is remarkably similar to that of Josh Fox.

Here’s an excerpt from one of the first Tribeca reviews of the film, by Eric Kohn in IndieWire

“The director’s activism naturally stirs up trouble, and while most of “Gasland Part II” lets its countless subjects lead the way, the story eventually returns to his personal antics: The finale involves a well-documented 2012 incident in which the filmmaker was arrested on Capitol Hill after attempting to film a congressional hearing on fracking; he handles the situation well, but ultimately gains nothing except another illustration of how much his hands are tied — by getting them cuffed. In this David versus Goliath tale, Goliath still has the upper hand. ‘Gasland Part II’ runs longer than the earlier installment, but ultimately it has less to say. Fox sounds the same alarm with a bizarre mixture of confidence in the message and an awareness of the vanity involved in delivering it.”

.@BillMoyers asks Sandra Steingraber tough question about poor farmers & #fracking income. She shifts to discussion of abolition from abomination. The question:

In preparing for this conversation, I read the story of one fellow who’s been working at odd jobs, taking welfare when he must, who’s now expecting a windfall of up to $300,000 a year for the next decade from a lease he signed for fracking with Chevron. Now do you really expect him to turn that down?

Her answer: 

Well, once they get to the level of — to the end of the process, where we’re asking a desperate farmer to turn away from looking at the bedrock under his feet as a bank account, you know, as a piñata that could be shattered to make money so he could retire, so he can send his children to college — we’ve failed, right? We’ve failed.

And so I’m far more interested in going upstream and looking at this as a design problem. To say, “All right, so we’ve had our run of fossil fuels. And we’ve become incredibly dependent on them to make stuff for us, right?” So the vinyl siding on your house is made out of natural gas, right.

[An]hydrous ammonia, which is used as synthetic fertilizer in our wheat fields and our corn fields, also made out of natural gas. So we have created an agricultural system that rides a tandem bicycle with the fossil fuel industry. We have created a materials economy and surrounds ourselves with material that are essentially fossils that were exhuming from the earth at a way that is not sustainable. They’re called nonrenewable for a reason.

And so it’s time to engage human ingenuity to do something entirely different.

And that’s where I’m interested in working. Because it seems to me when I look back at history, we have, in the United States, faced other times where our economy was ruinously dependent on some kind of abomination. And of course, slavery would be the one I would use as my example here. Where people had to rise up and say that even though millions of dollars of personal wealth is bound up in slave labor, even though slave labor offered us the lower prices of goods, offered us ability to be competitive in the world market, it’s wrong to do that.

And instead of trying to regulate slavery, control slavery emission rates, have state-of-the-art slavery, we decided to take an abolitionist approach to that.

Video and transcript.

Refereed paper finds big water & greenhouse benefit in coal > gas shift. Eager for @levi_m view. Notable, of course, that it’s Exxon research (!). But findings either stand or fail based on strength of data and analysis. Main conclusion: 
The carbon footprint of Marcellus gas is 53% (80% CI: 44–61%) lower than coal, and its freshwater consumption is about 50% of coal. We conclude that substantial GHG reductions and freshwater savings may result from the replacement of coal-fired power generation with gas-fired power generation.

Refereed paper finds big water & greenhouse benefit in coal > gas shift. Eager for @levi_m view. Notable, of course, that it’s Exxon research (!). But findings either stand or fail based on strength of data and analysis. Main conclusion: 

The carbon footprint of Marcellus gas is 53% (80% CI: 44–61%) lower than coal, and its freshwater consumption is about 50% of coal. We conclude that substantial GHG reductions and freshwater savings may result from the replacement of coal-fired power generation with gas-fired power generation.

Solid review of shale gas & fracking issues & opportunities.
Kuwait on the Prairie, says @npr, in neat post on shale oil/gas #fracking boom lighting up rural North Dakota.

New @USGS #fracking study: No Contamination from Fayetteville Shale Exploration in Sampled Wells.

Release: A study that examined the water quality of 127 shallow domestic wells in the Fayetteville Shale natural gas production area of Arkansas found no groundwater contamination associated with gas production, according to a report released today by the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Read More

Natural gas cheapest electricity source (including externalities) in graphs-of-the-year collection at @ezrakleim @bradplumer. Michael Greenstone of MIT offered this one, saying: 
“By unlocking vast new resources of natural gas in the U.S., fracking has transformed the energy landscape and dramatically reduced the price of natural gas. This graph summarizes the three types of costs associated with various sources of electricity generation: (1) the private costs of production; (2) external costs due to the release of conventional pollutants (primarily increased rates of morbidity and mortality); and (3) the external costs associated with the release of carbon dioxide and the resulting increase in climate change. When all three of these costs are considered, natural gas is the least expensive source of electricity.”

Natural gas cheapest electricity source (including externalities) in graphs-of-the-year collection at @ezrakleim @bradplumer. Michael Greenstone of MIT offered this one, saying: 

“By unlocking vast new resources of natural gas in the U.S., fracking has transformed the energy landscape and dramatically reduced the price of natural gas. This graph summarizes the three types of costs associated with various sources of electricity generation: (1) the private costs of production; (2) external costs due to the release of conventional pollutants (primarily increased rates of morbidity and mortality); and (3) the external costs associated with the release of carbon dioxide and the resulting increase in climate change. When all three of these costs are considered, natural gas is the least expensive source of electricity.”

A @nytimes feature on ambitious efforts to turn natural gas into a cleaner liquid (diesel) fuel. More signs Gas Age is here for a long while to come.

A @nytimes feature on ambitious efforts to turn natural gas into a cleaner liquid (diesel) fuel. More signs Gas Age is here for a long while to come.

Whatever you think of #NoFracking folks, impressive creativity placing well site in @nygovcuomo Mt. Kisco back yard (manipulated @nytimes photo).

As Chip Northrup writes:
“Under the proposed New York State fracking regulations, ponds (and streams and lakes and rivers) are not protected nor is there any setback of a shale gas well from them. So, unless the pond is in a floodplain, you can drill right in them or right next to them polluting the water big time.  This would, of course include a pond in any town without a land use ordinance that addresses shale gas industrialization, such as say Mount Kisco …”

Whatever you think of #NoFracking folks, impressive creativity placing well site in @nygovcuomo Mt. Kisco back yard (manipulated @nytimes photo).

Governor Cuomo home

As Chip Northrup writes:

“Under the proposed New York State fracking regulations, ponds (and streams and lakes and rivers) are not protected nor is there any setback of a shale gas well from them. So, unless the pond is in a floodplain, you can drill right in them or right next to them polluting the water big time.  This would, of course include a pond in any town without a land use ordinance that addresses shale gas industrialization, such as say Mount Kisco …

#NoFracking blogger Chip Northrup uncovers plans for 2 fracking sites in Central Park, tapping the “Olmsted” shale… (Mark Ohe illustration.) Wait, not April Fool’s Day?

#NoFracking blogger Chip Northrup uncovers plans for 2 fracking sites in Central Park, tapping the “Olmsted” shale… (Mark Ohe illustration.) Wait, not April Fool’s Day?