Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

KOPEL: ProPublica's shaky facts

By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 10, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Jason Salzman and I have different views, and write about different topics. So there has never been an instance in which Jason and I both screwed up on the very same topic.

Until now.

The source of our dual ignominy was a Nov. 17 front pager in The Denver Post written by ProPublica, an organization that supplies investigative stories to mainstream media for free. The article was about natural gas extraction, with a focus on Colorado and Wyoming. It argued that a widely used technique called "hydraulic fracturing" endangers drinking water and public health.

Jason praised the story, while I criticized it. My column prompted a very civil e-mail from the author, Abrahm Lustgarten. He noted that I had misspelled his name, which is not "Abraham." As my editor "Vincente Carole" says, correct spelling is part of journalistic accuracy.

I had criticized the article for omitting details about an exploding house, and for not including interviews with state or local officials. Although these items were missing from the edited article that appeared in the Post, they were in the longer version of the article on the ProPublica Web site.

I actually had looked on the ProPublica site, but obviously I did not look thoroughly enough. Moreover, I failed to identify some very serious errors in the article.

The article describes a recent case in which some wells in Wyoming may have been contaminated by chemicals from hydraulic fracturing. After describing the Wyoming situation, the article continues: "The contamination in Sublette County is significant because it is the first to be documented by a federal agency, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. But more than 1,000 other cases of contamination have been documented by courts and state and local governments in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania."

I asked Lustgarten for the basis for his claim about more than a thousand "documented" state cases of hydraulic fracturing water contamination. He replied: "The New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission have together documented more than 1,000 cases where water was contaminated by drilling activities."

I asked David Neslin, acting director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, how many cases they had "documented" of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing. He said, "None."

Jodi Porter, the public information officer for the New Mexico Department, told me that the department has never compiled any numbers about groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing.

So ProPublica apparently pulled a bait-and-switch - citing data about contamination from any drilling-related activity, but claiming that the data were about hydraulic fracturing.

The Colorado experience of zero cases of water contamination from hydraulic fracturing is consistent with the 2002 study from the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (a consortium of state regulatory agencies). The Commission surveyed regulatory agencies in 28 states (including Colorado and the other four states where ProPublica claimed that there were more than 1,000 "documented" cases of contamination). The response covered the entire history of hydraulic fracturing in those states. Every single one of those 28 states reported that there had never been groundwater harm due to fracturing.

The ProPublica article did not report the evidence from that government study, but brusquely dismissed it as "an anecdotal survey done a decade ago." Actually, the 2002 study has no anecdotes, and with a dataset of almost a million wells, it cannot plausibly be considered "anecdotal."

The theme of the ProPublica article, headlined "Buried Secrets," is the natural gas industry's refusal to disclose a list of all chemicals which are injected into the ground in hydraulic fracturing. The article accurately characterizes the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission as the "most stringent" regulatory agency regarding hydraulic fracturing.

The COGCC promulgated its final draft rules on Nov. 7, before the Nov. 13 ProPublica article, and before its Nov. 17 appearance in the Post. The article misdescribes the new regulations, and, significantly, omits the fact that the commission's new disclosure rule is nearly identical to what the drilling company Halliburton proposed in its June testimony to the commission. Section 205 of the new regulations protects drillers' trade secrets about the precise chemical recipes, while mandating full disclosure when specifically needed by the state for health or environmental protection.

So the morality tale of "Buried Secrets" is false. The true story is that the industry offered to do the right thing, and the most stringent regulatory agency accepted the offer.

I e-mailed Lustgarten about the issues raised in this column. He replied: "Thanks for your note. You clearly have very strong opinions, not only about these issues, but also about how they should be reported. That is your right. I don't see any reasonable possibility of changing your mind, either on what the facts show about hydraulic fracturing, or about our reporting and writing."

The response does not explain why so many key "facts" in the ProPublica article are indisputably false.

Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 11 books. He can be reached at kopeld@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • January 10, 2009

    6:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    It appears that ProPublica has an agenda that parallels that of the enviro-radicals. "Any lie to stop progress is not a lie".

  • January 10, 2009

    9:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    ...and Kopel's well researched facts are opinion.

    Without the News, this is the kind of propaganda machine we'll get.

  • January 10, 2009

    9:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    DiogenesTheCynic writes:

    It appears Mike_In_Hartsel is jumping to conclusions about a nonpartisan, nonprofit group. ProPublica should answer for its apparent mistakes. But it's not a mark of integrity to slag them as lying, anti-progress radicals.

  • January 10, 2009

    1:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ofearghail writes:

    If you put the words "Kopel" and "facts" together, doesn't it become an oxymoron?

  • January 10, 2009

    2:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ProPublica writes:

    ProPublica has reviewed this article and we remain confident in our stories on this important subject. Please note a complete response will be posted at www.ProPublica.org this Monday. We hope you'll visit the site to read it before finalizing any judgments.

  • January 10, 2009

    9:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    ProPublica
    What about being disproven do you not understand?

  • January 11, 2009

    9:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

    What do the effected property owners have to say about all of this?

  • January 11, 2009

    10:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    AvsIn7 writes:

    OFearGhail writes:
    "If you put the words "Kopel" and "facts" together, doesn't it become an oxymoron?"

    Only if you're biased or unethical. Which are you?

  • January 11, 2009

    11:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    Ha, ha, Hopi. I like how you accept one person's argument, and then tell ProPublica: don't bother me with a different perspective. I already know the truth.

    I like when Kopel (or others) challenge information that may be misleading or innacurate (as in the present case). It's too bad he seldom if ever challenges other sources of misinformation from the pro-business side, however.

  • January 11, 2009

    11:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    I hope when ProPublica publishes their response, that someone will link to it here.

  • January 11, 2009

    11:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    saffron writes:

    ProPublica,

    Justifying (defending) your methods in a public forum is not only bad PR, but an admission of insecurity (guilt?).

    You are destroying any semblance of our country's freedom of the press. Go away. Far away.

    Nice work on this story Kopel!

  • January 12, 2009

    4:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ProPublica writes:

    Setting the Record Straight on Hydraulic Fracturing
    by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - January 12, 2009

    In his Jan. 10 column in the Rocky Mountain News, Independence Institute analyst David Kopel significantly misstates the record on the environmental risks posed by the gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing.

    Using carefully culled quotations and selected statistics, Kopel asserts "indisputably false facts" in ProPublica's reporting.

    In fact, it is his column that is indisputably misleading.

    Kopel quoted a press spokesperson for New Mexico as saying the state had never compiled "numbers about groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing" -- the actual forcing of water into rock. He cites a similar remark from a Colorado official.

    These are classic examples of framing a precisely tailored question to elicit a misleading response, much as the tobacco industry used to ask scientists whether smoking could be conclusively identified as a cause of lung cancer.

    Please click through the link to get all of the facts about hydraulic fracturing - http://www.propublica.org/feature/set... .

  • January 13, 2009

    9:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bobby_b writes:

    ProPublica is a front for the radical environmental group. This is a religion to these people-- they won't let facts get in their way.

  • January 13, 2009

    9:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bobby_b writes:

    By the way-- what kind of "news organization" defends its articles on a forum like this?

  • January 13, 2009

    12:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Landman08 writes:

    ProPublica - Gasp! Mr. Kopel asked the question most closely related to the jist of your article, being whether there are any documented accounts of groundwater contamination by hydraulic fracturing, and you call that a "precisely tailored question". Mmm? It's hard to run from facts when you are not used to dealing with them.

    The oil and gas industry has drilled hundreds of thousands of wells for over 100 years on every continent on earth. Does anyone reading this article have any direct knowledge of contamination or damage done by hydraulic fracturing? How about secondhand knowledge (other than the fable, er, article by ProPublica)?

  • January 13, 2009

    8:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    I'd like to hear some arguments for or against what propublica (or Kopel) said, rather than the usual juvenile-like condemnations and conclusions without argument. Landman, I guess you had some trouble understanding their response or something as you select a quote (not even the whole sentence) and offer it out of context.

  • January 14, 2009

    11:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Achilles writes:

    I think, all in all, a reasonable exchange between Kopel and ProPublica. Kopel had questions and concerns; ProPublica seemed to have offered decent answers to those questions and concerns.

    Also, I think it is great that ProPublica has posted comments on this forum in response to Kopel's column. I think more people and institutions should do the same.

    Thanks for your work, Dave.

  • January 15, 2009

    12:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    ProPublica.......... my advice to you is get your facts straight and get them from the states you cite in your opinion piece. Don't make things up, and don't post a link to a biased article or whatever because considering what the truth is, it reeks of desperation to legitimize information not based off of reality. If you believe what you write, then provide a name of the contact for each of the state's you've cited so all of us can verify just how much of your opinion is based off of lies and how much of it is not.

    Good job Dave for calling out ProPublica's propoganda!

  • January 15, 2009

    12:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ILoveChipotle writes:

    Propublica is obviously ignorant of oil and gas operations in colorado. In northern colorado, ground water comes from the fox hills formation and is relatively shallow (500' ish below the surface). Hydraulic fracturing is done on formations 7000' below the surface. It is virtually impossible that any chemicals would impact ground water when it is injected over a mile away.

    Secondly, did it not occur to anyone that Halliburton and other service companies don't want to disclose the makeup of their chemicals because it's proprietary information. Why doesn't coke release it's secret formula? This is just another example of ignorant people trying to impact something they know nothing about.

  • January 15, 2009

    5:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    cwilly thanks for adding your juvenile diarrhea to this thread. If you can't show that you know anything about the subject at hand, at least you know how to choose sides and call names. And those skills are special as they are usually found only in the troll family. How in the world did you know which side to choose?

    cwilly writes to propublica: "my advice to you is get your facts straight and get them from the states you cite in your opinion piece" when the source of propublica's information is clearly cited in their response.

    cwilly's real purpose in life, however, seems to be the put-down. How many ways can I denigrate thee? Let's see:
    --ProPublica...get your facts straight (he disputes nothing propublica says);
    --Don't make things up (he doesn't identify anything made up);
    --don't post a link to a biased article or whatever (he doesn't identify a biased article);
    --because [I have the truth, your response] reeks of desperation to legitimize information not based off of reality (he doesn't indentify what is illegitimate or unreal)
    --[at least some] of your opinion is based off of lies (unidentified).
    --ProPublica [gave us] propoganda (unidentified).

  • January 15, 2009

    5:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    Chipolte: "Secondly, did it not occur to anyone that Halliburton and other service companies don't want to disclose the makeup of their chemicals because it's proprietary information."

    What does that have to do with the article or issues at hand?

    Chipolte: "This is just another example of ignorant people..."

    Ah, then you must be pretty smart!

    "trying to impact something they know nothing about".

    Obviously, somebody tried to learn something and offer it to the public. Maybe they should just stop and shut up? Is that your point?

  • January 15, 2009

    5:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DiogenesTheCynic writes:

    There you have it. Some of the best investigative reporters in the country have handled the issue with class and facts.

    Those of you quick to tar Pro Publica as some kind of left-wing propaganda outlet should really take a look at the site. They don't hesitate to bust scandal and impropriety on the left or of the not-explicitly-political variety. They really do everyone a public service. Transparency, after all, benefits everybody.

  • January 15, 2009

    5:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DiogenesTheCynic writes:

    They've been thorough in pursuing corruption charges against Blagojevich and resisting his appointment of Burris, and most recently they're on Dodd's case.

    http://feeds.propublica.org/~r/propub...

  • January 16, 2009

    9:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    anderson, you're familiar with diarrhea, aren't you? Now put your helmet on and wait for the bus to pull up. Remember, sit next to the blue sticker in the window. It's not a big bus..... so you won't get lost on it. Do you want me to make you my b**ch? I can....... but I like to be nice, even to the mental midgets of the world, like you? Now run off little boy.........

  • January 16, 2009

    9:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    anderson, if you know anything about drilling processes, come back and try..... even if it's desperately, but try to explain yourself because the rant I saw is what you'd call "juvenile". And why would you call someone names yet criticize that same person for what you think is doing the same? You are equally as dumb as jay........ birds of a feather, know what I mean? Prove me wrong! As I said, ProPublica's comments are disputed by Colorado's and New Mexico's oil and gas commissions. So, the facts have been disputed and I'm not wrong on it. Go cry to someone else..........

  • January 16, 2009

    9:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    anderson = ProPublica lackey of mis-information

  • January 19, 2009

    7:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ILoveChipotle writes:

    Did you read the article anderson? Propublica is whining that service companies don't disclose information about their chemicals. You should try to read something once in a while before you put your hoof in your mouth. You could also try debating facts instead of doing your typical liberal technique of calling people names. Get a clue!