Energy in Depth continued to advocate for hydraulic fracturing through media outreach and rapid-response commentary, positioning itself as a counterweight to environmental criticism. In the shale era, narrative strategy became as organized as drilling logistics.
Source: Energy in Depth (2010) Read More
Energy in Depth, an industry-backed initiative, promoted hydraulic fracturing as economically and environmentally responsible. Watchdog groups such as SourceWatch have examined the project’s funding and messaging, framing it as part of a coordinated public-relations strategy within the shale debate.
Source: SourceWatch (2010) Read More
A curated collection of bibliographic resources, government documents, letters, and video investigations serves as a crash course in fracking.
Source: Neil Zusman (2010) Read More
ProPublica journalist Abrahm Lustgarten reported that federal officials in Wyoming found at least three water wells containing chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. The investigation brought the groundwater question into sharp focus, linking drilling activity to documented contamination findings. As shale development expanded, water moved to the center of the debate: how much is used, what returns to the surface, and how safely it is managed.
Source: Democracy Now (2010) Read More
Environmental activist Walter Hang wrote directly to New York’s DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis, challenging assumptions in the state’s drilling review process. The letter dissected regulatory language and risk modeling, urging caution before permitting high-volume fracturing. Sometimes oversight begins not with a lawsuit, but with a pointed letter.
Source: Toxics Targeting (2010) Read More
Legislation introduced in Congress sought to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to remove exemptions shielding hydraulic fracturing from federal oversight. Supporters argued the change would restore transparency and accountability. Industry groups warned of duplication and delay. The bill spotlighted the “Halliburton loophole” in statutory form.
Source: Library of Congress (2009) Read More
Under mounting pressure, the EPA launched a comprehensive study of hydraulic fracturing’s potential impacts on drinking water resources. The move signaled federal recognition that questions about contamination required systematic review. Communities awaiting answers looked to the agency for clarity — and for evidence that could withstand political crosswinds.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010) Read More
As opposition mounted, gas companies launched multimillion-dollar public relations campaigns promoting shale as economic salvation and energy independence. Slick ads and sponsored studies emphasized jobs and lower prices. Critics countered with air samples and water tests. The messaging battle revealed a deeper reality: billions were at stake, and public perception mattered almost as much as geology.
Source: The Wonk Room (2009) Read More
As House Democrats explored new oversight of hydraulic fracturing, an industry coalition called Energy in Depth launched a campaign warning that regulation would kill jobs and harm the economy. Reported in the New York Times by Anne C. Mulkern, the effort illustrated how shale politics had become a high-stakes battle over narrative—economic growth versus environmental protection—at a moment when domestic gas production was rapidly expanding.
Source: The New York Times: Greenwire (2009) Read More
As drilling expanded across the Marcellus region, elected officials split along economic and environmental lines. Promises of jobs and tax revenue competed with warnings about water contamination and landscape fragmentation. The shale boom reshaped not only terrain, but political alliances.
Source: Press & Sun-Bulletin: pressconnects.com (2009) Read More
In the wake of the BP Gulf oil disaster, U.S. Sen. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado warned in the Philadelphia Inquirer that hydraulic fracturing posed a parallel onshore risk, urging federal disclosure of fracking chemicals under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Challenging exemptions advanced during Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2005 energy legislation, Casey and DeGette argued that energy companies should disclose the ingredients in fracking fluids—diesel fuel, benzene, methanol, and formaldehyde among them—while preserving proprietary formulas, countering industry claims that state regulation alone was sufficient.
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer (2010) Read More
The advocacy site DrillingIsntSafe.org argues that hydraulic fracturing poses documented risks of drinking water contamination, air pollution, and chemical exposure, citing the 2010 documentary Gasland by Josh Fox as a catalyst for national awareness. The site critiques Energy in Depth—funded by the American Petroleum Institute—for attempting to counter the film’s claims, framing the public debate over fracking as a clash between industry public relations efforts and citizen-driven environmental accountability.
Source: Drilling Isn't Safe (2010) Read More
President Obama and federal officials declined calls to seek a temporary halt on Marcellus Shale drilling in the Delaware River Basin pending a cumulative environmental impact study, despite appeals from Rep. Maurice Hinchey and environmental advocates. The dispute exposed tensions between economic development and watershed protection, with critics arguing that comprehensive risk assessment should precede regulatory approval in order to safeguard the basin’s Special Protection Waters.
Source: The New York Times: Greenwire (2010) Read More
Immediately upon the film’s release, Energy In Depth issued a paper claiming to “debunk” the film’s documentary evidence.
Source: DamascusCitizens.org (2010) Read More
This works because people that see this movie are touched. They are touched because they have been directly affected by hydraulic fracturing or they want to be a voice for those that have been and don’t want to become a silent statistic as well.
Source: Lovesocial Communications (2011) Read More