Oil/gas rep: Anti-fracking groups are well-funded, too
Anyone see this article? Oil/gas rep: Anti-fracking groups are well-funded, too
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-11854-there-is-a-big-problem-w...
I know what the article says about anti-frackers being funded, but if you actually look at the lobbying money being spent by the oil/gas industry,(http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E010 - and that is just lobbying money, doesn't include the PR/marketing money being spent and charged off onto royalties.
ExxonMobil alone makes billions in profits, exceeding it's previous year's profits every year for the past 5-6 years. so it's not like they don't have the money, or the message coordination systems in place with their trade and PR groups.
they waaaaay out spend the anti-frackers - so you would think the oil/gas industry would be doing a better job of convincing the public of the truth. Wonder why they are having such a hard time - especially when I read about how the anti-frackers are now complaining they are only preaching to their own choir.
Views: 795
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on
-
The reason the anti-fracing message sells is that it is all negative.
Ask any political consultant, negativity sells.
-
Permalink Reply by Francine Booker on
-
realize that, but with all the money and resources at their beck and call, including politicians, media etc, you would think they could just totally spam all the media sectors.
I mean range resources practically owns a radio station, and even hosts/sponsors a show. while visiting relatives in eastern part of the state, it was cabot oil&gas and chesapeake all over the place.
maybe people aren't listening?
-
Permalink Reply by lynn on
-
Oil companies make billions but they spend billions to do that. If you look at their profit margins they average around 10% profit. Media quickly prints or uses video from the anti's, more often than not they do not look into who funds that group. Even the article you highlighted from Boulder has a definite anti-fossil fuel slant to it. Half-truths and misleading statements about EPA oversight and testing results were featured. Deflect and redirect is exactly what the anti group did with its spokesperson's 'laughter' at where its funding came from, and if there was follow-up by the reporter (I use that term loosely) to actually determine where the group gets its funding the reader will never see it lest the publication be branded as a mouthpiece for the gas and oil industry. Money spent by an o&g company to counter claims by the anti groups is always reported like a David vs Goliath scenario. It seems to me that they've decided that just keeping quiet serves them better. That said it seemed to me that the 'spokesperson' the o&g company hired was a terrible choice, she did more for the anti's than she did for her employer.
-
Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on
-
If you can make one out to be the BIG BAD BOY as they did with BIG BAD TOBACCO the antis win. Shift data to your own needs and if that can't hod up find another data field to add to your list.
A good example is cancer as the catch all. We forget between 1951 and 1958, around 100 nuclear weapons tests were conducted in the atmosphere at the Nevada Test Site but yet no data was really gathered to indicate the cancer these test created. Throat cancer was considered caused by smoking now we know better and they get away from that angle of attack.
What the antis love is where they introduce a health care threat buy the use of studies they create for themselves to use and any attack upon that study is labeled as attack upon scientific proof by the BIG BAD INDUSTRY.
-
Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on
-
Decide for yourself http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/09/26/resea... just like lung cancer one can be exposed to radon gas for years without their knowledge. So was it radon gas that created a lung cancer at a very young age that went full blown 30 or 40 years later?
Right now the health care experts that make a nice living off of grants for studies will be aiming to link any cancer to fracking.
-
Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on
-
Chip I was raised in Licking County Ohio which has radon gas in some homes 400% above the EPA levels that is the same as smoking 8 packs of cigarette a day! However you will only hear smoking caused the cancer of Licking County residents. What I am saying is that studies are predetermined in most cases as a requirement of the grant in the first place.
A good example by anti gun groups studies prove that if you have a gun in your home you increase the chances of being hurt by that gun. They never add that if you have a gun in your home it may save the lives of your whole family.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill F. on
-
Easy to bring out anti drilling issues when people are really having these issues .With social media it spreads like wild fire .The industry is well aware yet continues it's practices without addressing concerns they know exist .If they ( NG industry ) were really neighborly or concerned like they claim they wouldn't disregard the issues brought to them from people living close to the extraction.In the long run it would only benefit them more by correcting all issues instead of fighting them and building a true record rather than just spreading PR that they are (when they're not .Being safe,predictable and neighborly goes far more beyond just words .People having problems (that they never had until drilling started ) can face issues that take years to resolve and in the meantime suffer many health and environmental problems without help from state,federal or the industry itself .This is why even with all their money they still are getting resistance .
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
