UPDATE: Natural Gas Opponents at Shaleshock Media Make It Up

There’s been some argument recently over who is allowed to post on our blog and Facebook page.  Our policy has always been to allow posting of opinions opposite from our own and let the facts speak for themselves, but our opponents’ websites and social media don’t seem to operate that way.  They are, in fact, making it up – big time.

UPDATE I:  Wendy Lynne Lee in a comment below assures us she’s not the culprit who made up remarks to put under my name.  We believe her.  Therefore, it has to be one of the administrators at Shaleshock Media, which has left the false comments up, refused to post ours challenging them and failed to answer our query regarding their action (we have screen shots of all).  Subsequent investigations by Wendy have borne this out.  We appreciate her honesty in investigating this matter.

UPDATE II: Shaleshock Media has now acknowledged they replaced  Joe’s words and those of his friend with wholly new remarks saying the opposite of what they intended to convey.  They say they’re “sorry.”  However, they have not removed the false comments, have not put up the correct comments, have refused to approve our other comments on the matter and and have not identified the perpetrator of what they describe as an “unfortunate mistake,” “really bad judgment on someone’s part,” “bad joke” and “prank.”   While we appreciate the words, it is actions that speak to real intent and we note the apology came wrapped in a threat.  This is the end of the matter are far as we’re concerned, Shaleshock Media having demonstrated clearly what they’re all about.  Moreover, we will not be giving Shaleshock Media representatives access to this site while they refuse to do the honorable thing and correct their ways. 

Wendy Lee, Bloomsburg professor and natural gas opponent, thought she had received a late Christmas present earlier yesterday when she was somehow inadvertently banned from the EID Marcellus Facebook page for about an hour. Recognizing the potential to set herself up as a martyr for the cause, she went off on an hysterical rant on our site and at Shaleshock Media, accusing us of trying to stifle her outbursts and an assortment of other sordid crimes against humanity.  It was classic Wendy, as readers of this blog can appreciate.

The funny thing is this; Wendy had no idea I was, at that very moment, working on a post about the Shaleshock Media website for whom she writes, where administrators did something far worse than not allowing comments for a few minutes. Needless to say, I was more than a little astonished when she went off on her tangent this morning. Read on to see why.

We get asked all of the time why we allow some of the comments from those opposed to natural gas development to appear on our Facebook and website. We’ve discussed several times, amongst ourselves, where the “line” is someone has to cross to be banned, whether permanently or temporarily. We usually leave links in place, for instance, unless the comment is nothing but a link, but we delete long pastings from other pages that could be read in their entirety elsewhere.

We will also delete a comment or part of a comment if it uses vulgar language, and will also delete all or partial comments if they attack another commenter with no substantive point being made. But, all in all, we try to be relaxed in our judgment so as to allow discussion with others of differing opinions.  You’ll find virtually everything Wendy has ever sent us published in full, except for long pastings where a link would suffice.  We make it point not to edit out anything from such posts, except for obscenities and the like and I don’t recall Wendy descending to that level.  We are, to be honest, harsher with some of our supporters.

Many opposition pages simply delete differing opinions as their means of controlling the conversation.  Others allow no comments at all.  Still others provide no indication of who is actually in charge or doing the moderating of comments.  This is why we typically don’t engage our opponents on their websites or Facebook pages although we occasionally make exceptions in the hopes our rebuttals might see the light of day against some outrageous claim by the opposition.

ShaleShockMediaBanner31

Recently, however, the Shaleshock Media “collective” (see logo above) posted an article about a meeting I attended and used that opportunity to say some things about me and my work that weren’t true and needed correcting.  I decided, as a result, to leave a comment in this particular case, not knowing whether it would get published, but I assumed the administrators at least, whoever they are, would see it.  What they did do absolutely shocked me and demonstrates the blatant disregard for integrity and truth among Shaleshock Media’s administrators, whoever they may be.  Their website never identifies them, but does list a number of participating authors and groups, including these individuals and organizations:

Allegheny Defense Project
Citizens for Clean Water, Susquehanna County, Pa.
Citizens for Healthy Communities
Coalition to Protect New York
Chip Northrup
Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition (CWCWC)
Enfield Neighbors for Safe Air and Water
Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition of Luzerne County, Pa. (GDAC)
Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County (GDACC)
Gas Free Seneca
Krys Cail
New York Residents Opposed to Drilling (NYRAD)
The Responsible Associated Landowners of New York State (REALNYS)
Residents Opposed to Unsafe Shale-gas Extraction (ROUSE)
Shaleshock Action Alliance
Texas Sharon
Wendy Lee
William Huston

What Shaleshock Media did with my comment is a reflection on each and every one of these individuals and organizations.  Their moderators replaced my comment with a wholly new message completely opposite to what I said.  The comment I left was not even close to what appeared in the comments section of the published page.  The only thing the same is literally my name, which they stole to make a comment of their own liking.  Luckily, I took a screen shot of both, as you can see below.

What I wrote…

1

What appeared on Shaleshock…

2

This isn’t a matter of deciding whether or not to publish opinions counter to one’s own – it’s fabrication, it’s lying and it’s libelous.  No doubt some of our readers, and obviously the Shaleshock Media administrators, are of the opinion such tactics are just fine when applied against someone they view as an “industry shill” (their favorite term of ad hominem derision).

Their tactic of intentionally replacing remarks with statements never made was not confined to industry representatives, however.  I had sent the article to one of my friends back home. Where I’m from, in the Hudson Valley, the topic is pretty heated and I wanted to demonstrate how groups such as Shaleshock Media twist what we do and spin it in a negative light. I never expected him to comment on the page, but he did, with a pretty benign comment.

Here’s what he said:

post

But that’s also not what appeared on Shaleshock Media and the administrators had no way of knowing he was a friend of mine.  Instead, they chose to publish this:

This is an obviously appalling practice, but I can at least understand what motivated their irresponsible actions in my case.  They are always trying to catch us saying something they can use against us, so they fabricated their “proof” to meet their agenda.  But, why would they change a complete stranger’s comments?  Who else has left a comment and had it changed by Shaleshock Media?  How many others didn’t see changes made to their comments or lack the means to call Shaleshock Media out for it?  If Shaleshock Media is willing to do this, what else are they making up?  The evidence suggests it includes a good deal of what they produce.

Thinking (wrongly as it turned out) the person moderating might be the author of the post,  I wrote to Wendy Lee to address the issue of my comments being changed in such a wholesale fashion to be anything but what I had really said.  Here is her less than satisfactory response, which is far from the standard she apparently wants to apply to EID:

Interestingly, earlier yesterday, Wendy had said this in response to Tom’s acknowledgement she had been inadvertently banned from our Facebook page for about an hour:

Having some administrative privileges on other websites, I can say with experience that THIS can’t really happen without there being a trail to follow.  Perhaps Mr. Shepstone doesn’t want to know who among his staff at EID usurped his authority, but it is unlikely that he could not find out. It’s either that, or Mr. Shepstone doesn’t have the administrative authority he says he does–both make him look incompetent. Someone DID something.

Let’s see if Wendy can live up to her own standards and tell us just who at Shaleshock Media literally put words in my mouth.  She says it’s easy, so let’s have the information and have it now.  She can no longer say she doesn’t know what I’m talking about, so there is no excuse not to act. [Fairness requires us to acknowledge Wendy subsequently did exactly as we requested and determined someone else at Shaleshock Media, not her, made the edits.  She has demanded they address it or she will stop blogging there.  We appreciate her honesty, even if disagree with her on just about everything else.]

Also, Wendy, when you read this, please kindly tell your friends at Shaleshock Media to either publish my comments as made, and those of others as they were given, or delete them. It is an administrator’s prerogative to control content, but no one has the right to draft wholly new comments to replace what others have submitted, and no one with an ounce of integrity would operate that way.  Let’s see if you, Shaleshock Media and its supporting groups have any.

Follow Us:

     

 

Comments

  1. This is so damning. Nothing they say can be trusted. They are scared of the facts; they can’t stand their followers gleaning an ounce of truth. It’s a shameful, classless hypocrisy that all too often defines the morals of their movement: let the ends justify the means.

  2. Observer says:

    Great Expo ‘se Joe and so very true..

    In order to blog on shaleshock I had to buy a roaming ip address so as a fixed one it could not be blocked.

    I have had been kicked off many times because of factual submissions that there moderators did not want either there following or the general public to know. Chip Northrup has also totally changed my postings to fit his criteria and make it look as if I supported the anti gas activism when I do not. I say with confidence that the level of deception these groups are using will come back to bite them in the butt. Maybe this blog you wrote will kick start others who have had this experience with anti web sites to come forward with their stories of similar treatment.

  3. Donald Roessler says:

    I don’t even bother reading their crap anymore unless I need a good laugh. Also don’t click on any of their videos on Youtube because it shows how many people look at them and when you watch them that number rises and that makes them happy.

  4. Dear Mr. Massaro,

    Let’s dissect your reasoning step by step:

    1. As I said “I’ve got no idea what you’re talking about” with respect to the alleged alteration and/or misrepresentation of your claims. I haven’t the faintest idea what happened or did not happen at Shaleshock. Moreover, “having some administrative privileges” in no way means or implies that I should or could know. Therefore, that allegation has, in fact, nothing to do with me, and your effort to somehow smear me with it is precisely that: a SMEAR.

    2. I will endeavor to find out whether either of these things occurred, and if they did–or anything remotely like them–I will leave Shaleshock immediately, and I will not post there again.

    3. I have deep-going commitments to freedom of expression–all expression short of direct or thinly concealed threats. The first amendment that protects your rights protects my rights. Period.

    3. I was in fact banned from the EID Facebook page. Whether an hour, a day, or a month is irrelevant. Mr. Shepstone–primary site administrator–acknowledged it as banning, and the only reason it was brief, as Mr. Shepstone also acknowledges, is because EID knew I would call it out.

    4. That the banning was brief because I called EID out shows only that EID does not have the same commitment to freedom of expression that I do. Mr. Shepstone can call it whatever he wants, say, “inadvertent.” But “inadvertent” is a weasel word–Mr. Shepstone is simply trying to downplay and thereby excuse what someone did, namely, delete all of my interaction with the EID hit-drones, and ban me from posting on the FB page. It is Mr. Shepstone’s job to know who this is, to prevent it from occurring. He failed at his job. I have no similar job at Shaleshock.

    5. “Having some administrative privileges” is very different than having the job at which Mr. Shepstone fails as primary site administrator. Site administrator is not my paid job. It is Mr. Shepstone’s. While I could not fail to recognize that a frequent-flier poster disappeared from a site or a Facebook page, I could not remove them, ban them, or know who had performed this action. That is what Mr. Shepstone is supposed to know. To compare what I should/can know to what Mr. Shepstone should/can know is absurd, and it omits a crucial fact: MR. SHEPSTONE IS A PAID ADVERTISER AND SITE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FRACKING. I am an unpaid voluntary activist for clean air and water.

    6. There is a world of difference between altering and/or fabricating claims that someone did not make and deleting and/or banning someone from making any claims. The former is not a violation of free speech; the latter is. The former is a gross abuse of privilege, and should never occur. The latter is sometimes, though, rarely justified.

    7. There are cases where posters ought to be banned: the making of threats, libel. No threats have been made anywhere here. Neither of these cases are libelous. If your words were altered, that is wrong wrong wrong. But no one called you names or sought to discredit you in a fashion that could injure you personally and/or professionally. That is libel. If there’s been any libel, it’s all on your side of the fence, Mr. Massaro. Talk to your libel-machines, Mr. Peckham, Mr. McMurtry, Mr. Weiss, Stage Coach Inn.

    8. Whatever did or did not happen at ShaleShock, the attempt to make out the argument that alteration and/or fabrication of the opponent’s claims is standard practice in the anti-fracking movement is beyond laughable. It is, in fact, to engage in fallacy of projection: projecting onto your opponent that of which you are yourself guilty, and it is the stock MO of EID.

    9. And that’s precisely what you’re doing here: This faux-outrage post is nothing but an attempt to

    (a) deflect responsibility away from Mr. Shepstone’s failure as EID Facebook page administrator by making out the allegation that altering/fabricating speech is somehow the same thing as attempting to silence speech. Both are very wrong–but for very different reasons.

    (b) make EID a victim, and you a poster-child for that victimization when, in fact, your representation of anti-fracking opponents is so devoted to mis-representation that you can’t even write the hit-piece on Dory Hippauf’s GDAC presentation without it exposing you as the paid advertiser regardless truth for fracking that you are.

    10. The EID hypocrisy and trampling of their faux-commitment to engagement and freedom of expression continues: The “Real Promised Land” Facebook page is a venture of EID—and I have been banned today from that page.

    Let’s sum up: Mr. Massaro is attempting to smear me with something I absolutely did not do, had no knowledge of, and had nothing to do with indirectly.

    Hence, he is guilty of precisely what he accuses ShaleShock: MAKING IT UP.

    Mr. Massaro’s motives are to save face for his erstwhile and evidently incompetent employer: EID’s Mr. Shepstone. Mr. Massaro epitomizes the EID “ethos, namely, when you’re really afraid they’re making headway, go rhetorically postal—surely something will stick.

    Except for that it doesn’t.

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      Joe Massaro’s words in commenting on your piece are totally replaced and he calls out Shaleshock Media on it (following your standards) and you accuse him of smearing you. No one will buy that, Wendy, absolutely no one.

      However, I am glad to know you did not do the deed (contrary to you, I except your word on that) and I am pleased you plan to dig into it and leave Shaleshock Media if you learn they did and will not post there again. I take you at your word on that as well.

      Let me note, however, the site administrator, whoever that is, obviously did it or bears responsibility for it, given that you didn’t do it and we didn’t. I also notice my comment, which was submitted prior to yours on Shaleshock Media. is still awaiting moderation but yours went up immediately. So someone is paying attention and deliberately refusing to deal with my comment. I don’t think you can ignore that. There is a problem at Shaleshock Media.

      • Dear Mr. Shepstone:

        Mr. Massaro ought not to have mentioned, discussed, included me in this piece at all. He not only does, he implies by affiliation that I am the one who undertook the distortion/fabrication of his words. YOU have just confirmed this by confirming that YOU accept that this wasn’t me. So YOU also clearly made the very connection Mr. Massaro was trying to allege. And here you’re trying to reinforce it by denial.

        Mr. Massaro’s is a SMEAR piece. You know it. I know it.

        Whether there is a problem at Shaleshock, I don’t know. I will find this out.

        There IS a problem at EID–a problem as clear as daylight, and it is called PAID charlatanism–you are the National Rifle Association of fracking.l

        • Tom Shepstone says:

          It is not a smear piece, Wendy. I am simply following your rule – that anything that happens must be the administrator’s responsibility. I’ll take the blame for you getting banned, although I honestly don’t know how it happened. It seems to me you have also taken some responsibility in saying you didn’t do it but would try to find out who did. I accept that. You’re NOT guilty but someone at Shaleshock Media is.

          • If this comment is posted, it will be a first as all my former comments never appeared.

            Mr. Shepstone,

            I have ZERO administrative rights at the blog mentioned. A few times I have copied and pasted a blog post from my blog to theirs. That’s the extent of my involvement.

            Since you admit that you are where the buck stops, maybe you can explain to me why you posted one of my photos on your website without my permission and why you libelously accused me of orchestrating something about which I had no knowledge. That I had no involvement in orchestration of anything to do with this order has is proven in my discovery and my deposition given under oath.

            Picture: Anti-shale activist Sharon Wilson, orchestrator of Parker Co. order, together with Al Armendariz

            On second thought, don’t explain it, fit it!

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            Where is that picture? I’ll substitute another.

          • The picture is not the only concern as I”m sure you understood from my comment. It is my picture AND your libelous statement that I was the orchestrator of the EPA order that needs correction. You had no reason to ever make such a claim about me because there is absolutely ZERO evidence to substantiate.

            You should be able to easily find the tag “Sharon Wilson” on this site and make those corrections.

            Additionally, I have ZERO administrative rights to the blog referenced in this post as I am only a rare contributor to that blog. The accusations above are similar to you being blamed for some comment under an opinion piece you submitted to a media outlet. I have nothing to do with anything in this post and I know nothing about it.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            Found it and deleted it. Also, I accept your word that you had nothing to do with Shaleshock Media matter.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            I deleted it from the one posted on EID Marcellus. I forgot it was also on the national site. I’ll bring that up with the administrators of that site.

        • Vic Furman says:

          What have you got against Guns Wendy… They are the instruments of freedom and ownership is proof of that. Ohhhh never mind explaining freedom to you would be like getting a newborn child to change their own diaper…..
          DON’T FRACK WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT !!!
          WoW…. I finally found a use for that dirty word you anti’s created…..

  5. Donald Roessler says:
    • Tom Shepstone says:

      Superb job, Don!

  6. Energy in Death is completely hypocritical. It BANS those who do not support its pro-fracking line from its own Facebook pages and from those it sponsors: “The Real Promised Land.” So much for EID’s commitment to freedom of expression! How frightened are the frackers of an anti-fracking film? VERY! So frightened, in fact, that they have to seal off their fragile little fabebook page from those who’d post the truth about the dangers of the enterprise lining their wallets!

  7. First if as you say you have a screen shot I suggest you post the entire screen shot with a date and time stamp and not just a cropped portion otherwise it is is a he said or she said issue.

    Second it is not like EID doesn’t report issues without editing neglecting to post the entire article or study, Such as neglecting to post the limitations of various short-term studies regarding air quality and then go an pontificate that those short term studies are the end all and tell all about air quality and gas drilling.

    Third what does this article get you it is just a continuing whine of attacks EID has conducted for many months, and including all the listed groups as conspirators just guilt by association which is another of the many logical falsies EID uses to try stir up emotional support.

    As I do not know or am involved with those organizations I can not say if what you say is true or not. But your proof is only a partial graphic which does not prove unequivocally that this issue even happened. Whether this was Libelous or not can not be proved by your article.

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      The screenshots speak for themselves, David. They’re real and they tell the whole story. Joe has asked to have the substituted comments deleted and it’s still up there with no action taken to remove it. See http://blog.shaleshockmedia.org/2012/12/19/energy-in-death-depth-refuses-dory-hippauf-hit-piece-award-joe-massaro-opts-for-silence-over-truth-0/#comment-3646. Shaleshock lied. It’s as simple as that. They also refuse to post my comments calling them on it, which sit there awaiting moderation while others are posted.

      • That’s exactly right. The screen shots speak for themselves. I have/had NO idea what Mr. Massaro was talking about–and THEN he used guilt by association to imply I was the culprit regardless.

        THAT is despicable.

        Mr. Massaro should be fired.

      • Vic Furman says:

        Shaleshock… isn’t that owned by that guy…. whats his name ?
        uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
        William Huston ?????

        yes I think so…a man caught up in so many accusations that don’t pan out and the author of so much misinformation

        • PaRoughneck says:

          Vic, actually it’s kind of hard to tell! As opposed to EID, who doesn’t hide behind a proxy domain operator, Bill H is NOT listed on the Whois report for shaleshockmedia.org!
          Funny how shalecrockmedia bloggers like Dory ‘Dots’ write as if she has a smoking gun regarding EID’s affiliation with the ‘Real Promised Land’ site-(something found in PLAIN SIGHT) when whois shows the following re: Shaleshockmedia.org

          Admin Name:shaleshockmedia.org Private Registrant
          Admin Organization:A Happy DreamHost Customer
          Admin Street1:417 Associated Rd #324
          Admin Street2:
          Admin Street3:
          Admin City:Brea
          Admin State/Province:CA
          Admin Postal Code:92821
          Admin Country:US
          Admin Phone:+1.2139471032
          Admin Phone Ext.:
          Admin FAX:
          Admin FAX Ext.:
          Admin Email:[email protected]

      • Tom Shepstone,

        Actually not they don’t. Joe Massaro called the posting libelous but without absolute proof such as an unedited screen shot this all a case of he said-she said.

        As someone who has to deal with legal documentation and providing “source documentation” for legal and regulatory requests that edited document is not proof.

        The above edited shots does noting to substantiate your claims. If EID doesn’t this is just another case of EID attempting a hit article on someone who does not agree with your opinion.

        • Tom Shepstone says:

          You folks are unbelievable. Shaleshock Media replaces comments with ones favorable to their own, refuses to take them down and you contend it’s all our fault. So much for your credibility, David.

          • David Meiser says:

            Now you are twisting my words Mr Shepstone, I am saying that you have not proven your case. You post edited screen shots without any way to verify the information.

            Just as in legal matters it is the Plaintiff who must prove the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. By withholding you still leave a reasonable doubt.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            This isn’t a court or I wouldn’t take Wendy on her word that she had nothing to do with it. You know well what Shaleshock Media did and you know better than defend it with distractions.

          • David Meiser says:

            “You know well what Shaleshock Media did and you know better than defend it with distractions.”

            Again until you provide absolute proof this is just a matter of he said-she said.

            It is not a distraction that the entire premise of this article is in regard to something which EID will not supply the unaltered documentation. if you can’t substantiate your allegations the allegations are suspect.

            I am not taking sides in this issue, I am just pointing out that you refuse to post absolute proof.

          • Dean Marshall says:

            Credibility mr Shepstone?????
            IPAA/EID has been on the attack against critics of the fracking that is so lucrative for its secretive financial backers.

            Here’s a recent example of its disinformation: the Capital Research Center (CRC) – itself part of the CEO-fueled echo chamber – quoted EID’s flack Tom Shepstone this month implying that the Park Foundation spent more than $17 million helping to oppose fracking in just one year. Wrote CRC: “In 2009, the Park Foundation had net assets of $246 million and spent $23 million, which included $17.6 million in grants and contributions to green groups opposed to fracking, according to Shepstone,” a Pennsylvanian who’s official title is “Campaign Director” for EID’s “Northeast Marcellus Initiative.”

            But, as reported earlier this year, the Park Foundation’s public filings show that only a fraction of that amount was spent on grants for projects to educate the public about fracking. The total for 2009 was approximately $700,000, which is 1/25th of what Shepstone claimed. In contrast, the industry’s biggest trade group, API, spends over a $180 million a year on its entire budget, including tens of millions of dollars on PR.

            CRC used Shepstone’s recent math on Park to buttress the absurd thesis that “Environmentalists often depict themselves as scrappy underdogs fighting the power of entrenched special interests. But the case of the Marcellus Shale — and the untold energy resources that could be recovered safely by new drilling technology such as fracking — pits ‘the little guy’ against powerful ‘green’ forces such as the Park Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council.”

            This info is Public and has been and will be circulated Widely!

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            The Park Foundation numbers are a matter of a record and we have detailed the data numerous times including these posts:

            http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/homespun-or-just-spin/5022/

            http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/connecting-dots-park-foundation/6240/

            The article you’re relishing was paid for by Park and is an attempt to deflect from a very serious issue – Park’s undeserved tax exemption as a charity when it’s really a political outfit. See below:

            http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/park-foundation-political-spending-doesnt-fit-their-charter/10034/

            As far the article’s personal attacks on me, which are irrelevant to this issue, have your fun as my father used to say, but you won’t be using these pages to do so. I deleted that part and make no apologies for doing so.

        • A jury would call this a he said, he said, he said, he said-she said.

          The contortions gone through to defend this stuff, including the absurd sticking of fingers in one’s ears (“I have/had NO idea what Mr. Massaro was talking about”) is classic.

        • Some facts about just how forthright Energy in Death really is (and this article is circulating widely–especially to folks excited about going to see the film EID is SO afraid of they have resorted to BANNING opposing commenters and posters on their fake “community” page “The Real Promosed Land”:

          “IPAA/EID’s “about” page says its “supporting members” are state associations of gas producers. It displays their logos, instead of the global corporations that launched it.What the logos cloak – in classic PR sleight of hand – are the larger interests behind the IPAA/EID operation. It has been described by some in the press as merely a “pro-drilling group” (in contrast with “anti-drilling” groups or citizens), but here’s how IPAA described EID in a leaked internal memo from 2009, obtained by DeSmogBlog last year. IPAA privately told its allies that EID was its new ”online resource center to combat new environmental regulations,” created with funding from Shell, BP, Chevron, and more.

          In other words, IPAA/EID is more accurately described as a front group launched by global gas companies in order to fight a public relations battle against new environmental protections on fracking.”

          Who are the REAL funders of the EID “Promised Land”–a land paved with the gold bars of money derived from STOLEN properties RUINED wells, DESTROYED communities, and RAPED eco-systems?

          SHELL: “which is the second largest company in the world in terms of revenue, with income of almost a half a trillion dollars in 2011: $470 billion, just behind Exxon. Royal Dutch Shell is a Dutch company registered in London. In 2010, Shell bought “East Resources,” which had gas holdings in Pennsylvania and nearby, for $4.7 billion. Shell’s environmental record includes the largest fresh water spill of oil in the world (in 1999 in Argentina), a major oil spill near Alaska in 1988, and numerous spills in the Niger delta in Africa. (East Resources’ founder, Terry Pegula, and his wife gave at least $300,000 to Tom Corbett’s campaign for governor of Pennsylvania.)

          BP: “which is the sixth largest company in the world in terms of revenue, with revenue of $375 billion in 2011. BP is a British oil and gas company, which took over two US companies, Amoco and ARCO (Atlantic Richfield Company) about a decade ago. Last month, BP and three of its employees were indicted on criminal charges, including manslaughter and obstruction of Congress, in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and it also agreed to pay a $4 billion fine related to the disaster. (And, although many are unaware of it, BP’s decisions also made the Exxon Valdez disaster worse.)”

          CHEVRON: “which is a US company that is the tenth largest in the world in terms of revenue, with income of $253 billion in 2011. Last year, Chevron obtained gas leases for over a million acres, plus hundreds of thousands of acres of development rights, from smaller companies like Chief Oil & Gas. Chevron and other companies have been sued for damaging our environment through the use of the MTBE gasoline additive that has contaminated water and soil. (Chief’s CEO, Trevor Rees-Jones, has been active in politics, giving at least two million dollars to Karl Rove’s Crossroads operations.)”

          The Koch Brothers: “Like IPAA/EID, CRC keeps many of its big funders secret, although foundation filings show that its funders have included the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the family foundation of the CEO of the multi-billion dollar Koch Industries — which in turn is led by Charles and his brother David Koch and is one of the richest privately held gas, oil, and chemical companies in the world. Koch Industries has reaped undisclosed profits from ventures benefiting from expanded fracking, such as from the lower cost of the natural gas used as a feeder to make its fertilizer by Koch Nitrogen, one of the Koch companies.”

          Then there’s XTO.
          Encana.
          Talisman
          Occidental Petroleum
          Schlumberger
          Halliburton.
          KBR
          Anadarko

          But you are not merely paid shills for some of the most egregious human rights violators and environmental rapists in the world, you are also paid SMEAR CAMPAIGNERS:

          “Here’s a recent example of its disinformation: the Capital Research Center (CRC) – itself part of the CEO-fueled echo chamber – quoted EID’s flack Tom Shepstone this month implying that the Park Foundation spent more than $17 million helping to oppose fracking in just one year. Wrote CRC: “In 2009, the Park Foundation had net assets of $246 million and spent $23 million, which included $17.6 million in grants and contributions to green groups opposed to fracking, according to Shepstone,” a Pennsylvanian who’s official title is “Campaign Director” for EID’s “Northeast Marcellus Initiative.”

          But, as reported earlier this year, the Park Foundation’s public filings show that only a fraction of that amount was spent on grants for projects to educate the public about fracking. The total for 2009 was approximately $700,000, which is 1/25th of what Shepstone claimed. In contrast, the industry’s biggest trade group, API, spends over a $180 million a year on its entire budget, including tens of millions of dollars on PR.

          MR. SHEPSTONE, THE FACTS ARE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. YOU ARE PAID TO DO ANYTHING–INCLUDING LIE, SMEAR, DISTORT, FALSELY DISCREDIT–ANYTHING THAT ACCOMPLISHES THE GOAL OF YOUR MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR SECRET-UNTIL-NOW EMPLOYERS. TO SAY THAT YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED IS TO TRIVIALIZE WHAT YOU STAND FOR.

          EID really is the NRA of natural gas–a propaganda agency that, just like the NRA, will exploit whatever it has to–including death–to sell its dirty, ill-got product.

          Compared to what EID does and what EID stands for, what happened to Mr. Massaro–though still VERY wrong–is trivial. For EID to exploit it as if EID were somehow a victim–THAT is perverse.

          I now know what happened at Shaleshock, and I know who is responsible for the misrepresentation of Mr. Massaro. I will not reveal who this is; this is not my place. This person must own up to that themselves. If they do not, I will leave Shaleshock. Instead of posting a pathetic update, however, Mr. Massaro OUGHT to have posted a complete retraction of his absurd and made-up accusation against me along with an apology. Instead he left up the piece.

          How tactless and dishonest–and predictable.

          And I am still BANNED from your fake community page whose aim is to dull the impact that The Promised Land is going to have. I’ll look forward to being reinstated there too.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            We have made it clear to anyone and everyone that you are not responsible, Wendy, even to the point of updating our post to say so. I appreciate your honesty in addressing the matter with Shaleshock Media. That tells me that, while you and I are on different planets in most respects, you are an honest individual. I thank you for that.

          • And now let’s see you respond to the PR-Watch expose of the way you make your money, including the patently false claims you made, for example at my university:

            ““Hydrofracking Improves Water Quality!” – When Shepstone made this claim at a public meeting, he was met with a spontaneous burst of laughter in disbelief, but he claimed it was true because more wells will be tested due to fracking than are currently monitored. In claiming fracking improves water quality, Shepstone conveniently ignores the millions of gallons of fresh water contaminated in the process of fracking each well, resulting in waste water whose “brine” is not even recommended for use on roads because of the risk of ground water contamination. He also ignores concerns that the water may become contaminated with dissolved radium due to the radioactive uranium rock in the region, requiring additional treatment, among other concerns that have been raised across the country about the potential for contamination of America’s precious aquifers and the spoiling of Americans’ wells.

            * “Natural gas produces water rather than depleting it” – Shepstone made this claim apparently based on the fact that burning methane gas or heating wet gas releases water vapor, and water is a heavier molecule than methane, but his claim ignores the fact that millions of gallons of fresh water are being pumped from aquifers and rivers to be spoiled with each fracking well, and the industry is banking on drilling thousands and thousands of such wells in the region.

            * “There is no evidence the development of this resource will damage the environment . . . but plenty of evidence the farm and the woods can be saved with it” – This Shepstone claim is predicated on the notion that rural land can require money for property taxes to maintain, which he says gas leasing revenue will aid, but his claim ignores the effect of industrialization on farms, parks, and rivers, which has been documented by Oscar-nominee Josh Fox and others. Shepstone’s claim also ignores other documented environmental hazards from fracking, including the venting of unprocessed methane gas and other carcinogens associated with fracking (as documented in the video at the link).

            * “Hydraulic Fracturing Is An Open Book” – Shepstone pushed the idea that fracking fluid “is an open book” because some of the chemicals in it have been revealed, even as he sought to minimize concerns about what secret chemicals are in dozens of pounds of ingredients used in each well that companies keep secret under the claim that they are “proprietary,” chemicals he says are basically harmless jellies. Because the blend of secret chemicals is proprietary and varies by manufacturer he cannot actually prove his assertion, but that’s no deterrent. He also fails to mention that IPAA has lobbied to keep such chemicals secret by opposing the closing of the “Halliburton loophole,” — legislation that was mentioned in the IPAA’s leaked memo discussing the need for its EID campaign. (Similarly, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has also pushed for so-called state “disclosure” rules sought by Exxon to keep certain chemicals used in fracking secret from the public, as reported by the New York Times.)

            These are just some of Shepstone’s many claims on behalf of IPAA/EID. Curiously, but on a much more minor note, he has also written online comments pushing pro-fracking claims sometimes citing as his location towns other than where he actually resides in Pennsylvania.” (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11921/“energy-depth”-–-reporters’-guide-its-founding-funding-and-flacks).

            Every one of these claims is demonstrably false. Your silence on the substantial and damning disclosures made public by the PR Watch story is very telling, Mr. Shepstone. Even here, you say only what serves a propaganda purpose for YOU, and that is very revealing indeed.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            They are not demonstrably false but, rather, demonstrably true. Baseline water testing has led to the solving of numerous water quality problems, a fact attested to by not just but hydrogeologists. The combustion of methane does produce water in far more quantities used in fracturing, which we have proven more than once with the approval of chemists. As for your other claims, they are simple a lot of yelling with absolutely no substance. You can applaud this Park Foundation funded screed all you want but it is a piece of amateurish sophistry. The idea that the Park Foundation has funded a mere $700,000 of advocacy is also false on its face. Look at the numbers:

            http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/homespun-or-just-spin/5022/

            http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/connecting-dots-park-foundation/6240/

            The article you’re relishing was paid for by Park and is an attempt to deflect from a very serious issue – Park’s undeserved tax exemption as a charity when it’s really a political outfit. See below:

            http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/park-foundation-political-spending-doesnt-fit-their-charter/10034/

          • David Meiser says:

            To examine how much water would be generated from the combustion the math still does not add up, for example if we take the above example and burn 0.663kg (the volume of one cubic meter of methane at 20C)

            Methane Methane Methane Mole Water Mole Water vapor Water Vapor
            kg g g/mol methane g/mol Water g Kg
            0.663 66.3 16.04 41.33 18.02 36.03 1489.29 1.489

            So burning one cubic meter of methane (at 20C) gas produces 1.489kg of water or about 1.489 liters of water this analogy is not technically accurate about the replacement of water via combustion of methane.
            Hopfully this table stays in line.

          • Tom Shepstone says:

            If you’ll take a screen shot of the table, I’ll upload and post.

          • David Meiser says:
          • Tom Shepstone says:

            Thanks. I’m not sure I completely understand your table. It appears you’re saying the amount of water produced by the combustion of methane is less than what we suggested in this post:

            http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/turning-natural-gas-into-water-hydraulic-fracturing-doesnt-deplete-water-supplies/7713/

            Perhaps it would be useful to compare and contrast using the same sort of formulation we used but with your assumptions.

            Also, see:

            http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=methane%20combustion%20produces%20water&source=web&cd=19&ved=0CFsQFjAIOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naturalgaswaterusage.com%2FDocuments%2FGWPC_Water_Energy_Paper.pdf&ei=fPpXT831CeGO0gGVo7GvDw&usg=AFQjCNEIMCDYhXowivdNFn4s52a-eTTRqg

            and the other links in the post itself.

            I will be interested in your interpretations.

  8. Donald Roessler says:

    I think some of these people ate too much fruitcake over the holidays.

  9. Dean Marshall says:

    Please explain the choice of “The Real Promised Land” for one of the many incarnations of EID “Informational” Pages? Could it be that the actual release of this film, it’s Stellar Cast, spellbinding dramatic plot, (Art immitates Life) , and the fine job the of promotion has the Fracking Industry quite worried? Could it also be a deceptive ploy to re-direct WEB traffic to Your Page whenever currious folks searh for Real info on the Real Film? I have just read all your claims of victimization by those nasty Environmentalist Nimby’s who just don’t play fair and sometimes resort to bias and the twisting of your honest and unbiased offerings of the Joys of Fracking 101. C’mon now….can’t you see the irony? Like when our local Editor of a slanted rag called the Press Enterprise accused AP reporters of bias when they wrote that “many people are concerned about the dangers of Fracking”. Is it official Pots Calling the Kettle Black Month and I didn’t get the memo?

  10. Donald Roessler says:

    The folks who know the real story behind fracking won’t waste their money on The Promised Land film so stop throwing it out there in the conversation in an attempt to get us to go watch it.

  11. ken beers says:

    Tom,joe,and the rest atEID.Wow you guys must have really struck a nerve! You would be very surprised to know just how many follow your team and are silent. Mostly because we hold jobs and actually work for a living.this bunch of rag tag obstructionists are nothing but pure entertainment for us, please don’t cut them off. Even though it is sickening to listen to them spout off their constant lies! Honestly I don’t think there is a lick of common sense (even if u bunch all four or five of them all together)! They remind us of fish on the river bank GASPING for their last breath of air. They know they are done /finished! But wait not to worry they will move on to something else they can whine and rant about. P.s this Vic furman gentleman (I am guessing) must have served in the military and fought for our country, which in turn provided these nimby /obstructionists the rite of free speech so they can spew their nonsense! VIC is for energy independence and any true hard working American will be glad to stand by his side! four and a half years is long enough to put up with complete nonsense!!!

    • Vic Furman says:

      For Submission

      Thank you for your observation Mr. Beers I know as all do’ EID is an energy funded sight who’s job it is to get the truth out. For crying out loud!!! If you owned a business that was being attacked like the Natural Gas Industry is by these hypocrites that use fossil fuels and never spoke out against the drilling process until it came to their own back yard…. you would put together a team to defend yourself or the lies and mis-information THESE ACTIVIST SPEW would make you a target of all communities.

      I am no lawyer… I never finished collage but THAT DOESN’T MAKE ME IGNORANT TO THIS DEBATE. To the gentleman that keeps demanding proof. I too demand proof! At almost every meeting I have ever attended where an activist aginst gas drilling who stated water aquifers in PA have been poisoned by fracing I always stand up and ask for it’s name and location stating I want to research that claim, and it’s never provided. ONE WEB SITE IS OFFERING A 1 MILLION DOLLAR CASH PRIZE TO ANYONE WHO CAN PROVE THIS Gasland not only debunked by the energy companies defending themselves against the likes of Josh Faux, but have been debunked by every state filmed in the movie BY THAT STATES regulatory’s departments.

      I myself 4 years ago visited the homes on carter road where a Cabot well blowout did effect water quality, but not with fracing chemicals that was a lie, just methane and was given a tour of several of the homes by Lauren Salsman an environmental engineer who at the time was working on gas station designs and knew the importance of protecting water sources and was one of the original 13 homes effected included in the DEP’s consent order.

      Most of the so called facts coming from the activist are available on the PA-DEP web sites and are solicited by the activist themselves at home of people who are suing gas companies for pre-existing problems. As the man who is hollering for proof above well knows that a litigant in a law suit is not a good witness because sometime the truth will lose the case. Example watch Vera’s Dec 12 interview with the homeowner in Franklin Forks. the home owner just bought the home in 2010. I agree that drilling and siemic testing can and will agitate well water sediment which can cause arsenic, barium, and iron in the ground to elevate temporarily turning the water brown but these metals are in the earth naturally and will settle back down in time as the water on carter road did. “SELF MITIGATED BY NATURE” not to mention living next to the salt springs, where natural gas has been surfacing in the water for hundreds of years doesn’t show us that the whole area may have natural gas migration well before drilling started.

      To you Mr. Shepstone… I have sent you an e-mail that I was copied on where the activist stated they wanted to do exactly what their attempting to do here They want to turn this site into an argument instead of a place people can go to for news and updates on the Industries drive for excellence in the field through process improvements and best practices. I get caught up in their game all the time but I am getting better. Lets move on to more important issues.

      TY – Victor Furman Veteran – American And proud owner of 16 fire arms

  12. Mr. Shepstone: “This isn’t a court or I wouldn’t take Wendy on her word that she had nothing to do with it. You know well what Shaleshock Media did and you know better than defend it with distractions.”

    Translation: “I (Shepstone) actually prefer to believe that Wendy DID alter/fabricate Joe Massaro’s words. So I (Shepstone) am actually lying when I say that EID accepts that she didn’t alter/fabricate. But I (Shepstone) do know that she did not such thing, I (Shepstone) just want to make sure I take every opportunity to smear her more.”

    How completely consistent with your profile laid out by PR Watch: “Here’s a recent example of its disinformation: the Capital Research Center (CRC) – itself part of the CEO-fueled echo chamber – quoted EID’s flack Tom Shepstone this month implying that the Park Foundation spent more than $17 million helping to oppose fracking in just one year. Wrote CRC: “In 2009, the Park Foundation had net assets of $246 million and spent $23 million, which included $17.6 million in grants and contributions to green groups opposed to fracking, according to Shepstone,” a Pennsylvanian who’s official title is “Campaign Director” for EID’s “Northeast Marcellus Initiative.”

    But, as reported earlier this year, the Park Foundation’s public filings show that only a fraction of that amount was spent on grants for projects to educate the public about fracking. The total for 2009 was approximately $700,000, which is 1/25th of what Shepstone claimed. In contrast, the industry’s biggest trade group, API, spends over a $180 million a year on its entire budget, including tens of millions of dollars on PR.

    Smearing anyone that gets in the way of your profit ventures. That’s the EID way–and Shepstone its perfect representative.

  13. BH says:

    Hey Tom, that edit was an unfortunate mistake.
    It was really bad judgment on someone’s part. Sorry.
    I do not approve, and I’m going to try to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

    It’s not Wendy’s style, and it’s not mine either.
    I think you know that.

    Next, FACT CHECK:

    That blog site has nothing to do with Shaleshock, Shaleshock Action Alliance,
    nor does it have anything to do with the video work we do at Shaleshock Media.
    Got that? Don’t get confused.

    And what about these?

    Allegheny Defense Project
    Citizens for Clean Water, Susquehanna County, Pa.
    Citizens for Healthy Communities
    Coalition to Protect New York
    ….
    </ul?

    WTF? You are dreaming, man!
    Those groups are completely unrelated. Where did you get that?
    We are just a few independent bloggers, and someone set up that site for us to use.

    Once again, either you are CONFUSED ABOUT THE FACTS
    or you are DELIBERATELY LYING.
    Which is it, Tom?

    And are you trying to argue that the malicious edits YOU make
    to comments on your blog site are somehow BETTER than or more justified
    than this one malicious edit someone made to Joe? GET REAL!

    This is what I like to call:

    EID PR Oblique Strategy #11:
    Take YOUR vulnerability, and make it THEIRS
    a/k/a/
    Pot Calling Kettle Black.


    http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2012/11/eids-public-relations-oblique.html

    Let’s see if you print that.
    (I recall you’ve deleted it about a dozen times. Maybe it strikes a nerve?)

    Plus all that other criminal stuff you do: Spying on people/ Invasion of Privacy,
    ad hominum / personal attacks, bullying, harassment, defamation, character assassination?
    Threats? Calls for disrupting our meetings and events?

    What someone did to Joe’s comment was a PRANK.
    A (bad) joke.

    Whereas YOU ALL at EID act like cheerleaders, apologists,
    and GANGSTERS for a DIRTY industry which is DESTROYING OUR LAND BASE
    so that you can line your pockets.

    Here’s a HOT TIP for my friend Tom & co.:

    Highly suggest you lay off picking on my friends.
    Keep your nose clean. Stop the attacks and lies.
    You maybe might want to even find a new gig soon.

    Or else you just might find yourself in the hotseat.
    Under close scrutiny.

    People are beginning to look into the nature of your CRIMINAL RACKET.
    Maybe you’ll get leniency if you start behaving like a civilized adult starting now.

    Be assured of this:

    If anything ever happens to any of the ANTIs or NIMBYS or TREE HUGGERS
    or AGING HIPPIES SEEKING RELEVANCE, or whatever name you want
    to call us this week,

    KNOW THIS WELL:
    You will be in prison for a long time.

    Your friend,
    Bill Huston

    I say this for the benefit of all beings.

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      I was going to delete your threats, Bill, but far better that others see them.

      Glad to see you admit Shaleshock Media was at fault here, by the way, although it’s still unclear who actually did it.

      As for that list of affiliates, please go to http://peg.shaleshockmedia.org/schedule/ of your own website where they are listed as participating groups in your activities.

      Finally, I’m happy to leave your link in this post as it demonstrates who’s really doing the ad hominem stuff here.

      And, by the way, I notice you STILL have not deleted the fake quotes and you have refused to publish my comments to your site addressing this matter, yet you want unfettered access here. We are not going to allow any more comments from you as long as this is the way you operate. We’re taking your advice and going for more civil discussion, you see.

      • Donald Roessler says:

        The ones who should be thrown in prison are the ones who are invading our local social medias and interfering with our local politics.

        • Donald Roessler says:

          Meaning the ones who come our sites using ficticous names and spew out lies in order to help their cause.

    • Vic Furman says:

      I suggest Mr. Huston go back and look at his own video library and then put the stones down.

    • vic furman uuuuuummmmmmmmm says:

      Hey Tom, that edit was an unfortunate mistake.
      It was really bad judgment… uuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmm

      CONFUSED ABOUT THE FACTS
      DELIBERATELY LYING. “Maslov’s theory of self projection uuuuuuummmmmmm”

      WTF? You are dreaming, man! ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ommmmmmmmmmmmm

      We are just a few independent bloggers CONFUSED ABOUT THE FACTS & DELIBERATELY LYING

      malicious edits are somehow BETTER than or more justified This is what I like to call: FACT CHECK:

      WTF? You are dreaming, man! What someone did to Joe’s comment was a PRANK, blog site has nothing to do for Clean Water, Susquehanna County, Pa

      I say this for the benefit of all beings. It’s not Wendy’s style, and it’s not mine either.

      These are BH’s words as he meant to say after all “that edit was an unfortunate mistake”

  14. David Meiser says:

    The calculation is as follows

    The density of methane in a gaseous state is 0.668 (kg/m3) at 20 C so in one cubic meter at 20 C there is kg 0.663kg Methane. Methane’s molecular weight is 16.04 g/mole, so in one cubic meter at 20 C there is 41.3 moles of methane. Combusting of one cubic meter of methane at 20 C produces two moles of water for each mole of methane used so there would be 82.6 moles of water produced. The molecular weight of water is 18.02 g/mole there would be 1489.3 grams of water produced. which is essentially equivalent to 1.5L of liquid water, again assuming the temperature is 20 C

    Methane is a gas and at that temperature water (for the most part) is a liquid so the volume of liquid water produced would be a volume of 0.0015m³

    Hopefully my math is correct but essentially no, the volume of water produced by the combustion of methane will not fill the volume left by the methane

    One Caveat I am using 20C and 1 ATM pressure as according to ideal gas laws pressure increases volume decreases and therefore if the volume is kept constant and the pressure is increased there is a greater molar concentration of gas

    • Tom Shepstone says:

      You are over my head with this, but I think I get the gist of it. You’re saying burning one cubic meter (35.3147 cubic feet) of methane yields 1.5 liters (0.396 gallons) of water, which means every cubic feet of gas yields 0.01122 gallons of water. (Sorry for not using metric measurements but I get confused if I don’t). We said one billion cubic feet of methane, when combined with oxygen, yields 11,242,000 gallons of water, which is the equivalent of saying one cubic meter of gas yields 0.01122 gallons of water. It’s virtually the same, isn’t it, or am I missing something? I must confess I don’t understand your observation that “the volume of water produced by the combustion of methane will not fill the volume left by the methane.” Is that the issue from your perspective?

Speak Your Mind

*