Energy In Depth is to fracking as Joe Camel is to cigarettes


Dr. Cline and EID offer extraordinarily weak expositions which contradict their premise, demonstrate an acute misunderstanding of their own industry and advocate for actions which are not considered “best practices” in the oil and gas field.

Energy in Depth Makes Massive Mistakes

The Independent Petroleum Association of America IPAA is a “national association representing the thousands of independent crude oil and natural gas explorer/producers in the United States.” Their mission is to ensure “a strong, viable domestic oil and natural gas industry.”

When fracking moved closer to where people live, opposition grew based on the realities of impacts. IPAA developed an advertising campaign to attempt to “combat” regulation “especially with regard to hydraulic fracturing.” That advertising campaign is Energy In Depth. See IPAA memo or EID’s birth announcement.

Examples of advertising campaigns:

  • Mr. Whipple was an advertising campaign for Charmin toilet paper.
  • ( * ) is the cheeky advertising campaign for Preparation H hemorrhoid ointment.
  • Joe Camel was an advertising campaign designed lure teens to smoke.

The comparison to Joe Camel is most applicable. Extreme energy extraction using fracking exposes humans and the environment to toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and harms health and the environment. The toxic emission from all stages of shale oil and gas extraction are similar to second-hand smoke. Like Joe Camel, EID camouflages the dangers and like the tobacco industry, EID misuses science. Some of the players from the tobacco industry are the same (more on that later).

Questions for Dr. Cline:

How low on the Ph.D. totem pole do you have to be to work for an advertising campaign that is tantamount to Joe Camel?

How low on the Ph.D. totem pole do you have to be to be compared to Spinal Tap’s Nigel Tufnel?

Yet another questioner asked about the conflict between Mr. Cline’s testimony on fracking “flowback” percentages last night, and related testimony earlier this month, helpfully explaining to Mr. Cline that 90% of 20% is not equal to 90%. This seemed to be beyond Mr. Cline’s grasp. You really felt for him—he sounded like Spın̈al Tap’s Nigel Tufnel: “These go to eleven!”

Truthland bombs in Buffalo

What happens when a Joe Camel Ph.D. debates a renowned scholar?

Natural Gas Drilling: A Discussion at Keuka College
Panelists included Dr. Scott Cline and Dr. Tony Ingraffea. Keuka College, July 26, 2011 (7:30)

What happens when the Joe Camel Ph.D. is invited to again debate the renowned scholar?

Dr. Cline and Dr. Ingraffea were to debate in Torrey NY last Thursday, but Dr. Cline was a no-show.

What happens when a Joe Camel Ph.D. does not understand how science works?

This is not how science works and is something that even a political scientist understands.

Science has not proved fracking to be always safe From Dr Mark A. Wolfgram

I think the only logical answer to these questions is this:  Dr. Cline is Joe Camel.


For more references on Energy in Depth and the “GAS”roots see the “GAS”roots exposed trifecta.

Targets, Goals, and Methods of Public Relations and PSYOPS

PSYOPS use by the oil & gas industry


About Sharon Wilson

Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.


    • Tim Ruggiero says

      Asian mail order bride, Chip. Industry is the groom, Asia the bride, and Tom Shepstone is the Father of The Bride.

  1. anonymous says

    The link to the Wolfgram letter goes to subscription only. Here is the whole letter.

    High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email to buy additional rights.

    Science has not proved fracking to be always safe
    From Dr Mark A. Wolfgram.
    Sir, In his response to my letter outlining the conclusions of the most recent Environmental Protection Agency report about how “fracking” has most likely led to groundwater contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming, Scott Cline claims that the scientific evidence points in the opposite direction, that “fracking” is perfectly safe (Letters, February 28).
    Fifth election was nearly the last
    Shoot three arrows – as long as monetary policy is the first
    Scots’ Yes vote will benefit rest of UK
    Economics needs grounding in randomised trials
    First, Dr Cline misrepresents a fundamental aspect of the scientific method, Karl Popper’s principle of “falsifiability”. Science cannot prove that fracking is safe, will always be safe, and will be safe under all possible conditions. While such a claim has been falsified, the EPA study has not proven that fracking is therefore unsafe in all places, times and conditions. This is not how science works and is something that even a political scientist understands.
    Unfortunately, for Dr Cline’s case, the EPA study raises some serious questions, which he does not address. He provides no reasonable grounds for why the Bush administration should exempt the industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act. If it is so perfectly safe, why go through the extra effort of issuing a special exemption?
    Without free scientific inquiry unconnected to the interests of the affected industry, it is impossible to make good public policy. Without good scientific knowledge, we have no basis for judging the risks and benefits, which was the point of Mr Wolf’s original commentary.
    Second, Dr Cline claims the article “Ohio Earthquake Likely Caused by Fracking Wastewater” in Scientific American (January 4) “makes clear that hydraulic fracturing was not the cause” of the Ohio earthquake. He argues that the wastewater generated by fracking, when injected back into the ground, is not part of the fracking process, and therefore fracking was not responsible. This is a rather spurious argument.
    Mark A. Wolfgram, Dept of Political Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, US