golden beetle
Active member
I haven't yet seen the documentary, but think its worthy of discussion.
Let's open a thread and get some opinions.
Let's open a thread and get some opinions.
Give us a try!
Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!
Gasland
- Thread starter golden beetle
- Start date
Twism
Troop Leader
Personally, I HATE documentaries. They are generally too opinionated and try and force their own views (the creator) down your throat. However Gasland is not like that. Its very well made and from the perspective of one guy going out and getting the facts from locals. What these people he interviews have to say are not lies, and he never (Josh Fox, the creator) tries to force it on you. He documents trying to contact fracking companies, has independent sample taken of fracking areas and speaks with EPA officails about how fracking companies are getting away with things by getting a pass from regulation.
I highly recommend the film if you have not seen it.
I highly recommend the film if you have not seen it.
dcabarle
Administrator
I'm against fracking for selfish reasons but... I found a few rebuttles regarding gasland. It would seem to me that not enough research was done with the project and a bunch of innacurate assumptions were made and put into the documentary. Hey... As much as I hate the thought of fracking, there's still another side of the story (right/wrong/indifferent) that should at least be considered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1W8MnveFq8&feature=pyv&ad=9489784773&kw=gasland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1W8MnveFq8&feature=pyv&ad=9489784773&kw=gasland
Last edited:
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
The definition of "documentary" is : Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Gasland is NOT this.
Documentaries are supposed to "document" reality. Gasland was structured to sway the viewer toward Josh Fox's way of thinking (whether or not his evidence was true or not did not seem to bother him) . It worked on many of the viewers.
tomfly
The only thing left should be foot prints.
It does not matter you are on the pro or on the against side of the issue. DC stated that he does not want a cell tower in his town but at the same time he wants the convenience of a cell phone. It all boils down to this. We all know that there is an ugly side to the standard of living that sets us as Americans above the rest. Are you willing to lower your standard of living or not? I personally do not want to. Are you willing to? That is the question that should be asked.
Trouser Trout
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Being impartial is impossible.
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
Rusty Spinner
Active member
I've seen the movie several times now and DC and FF have it correct, plenty of inaccuracies in this one. While I am personally against the current methods of hydrolic fracking, putting out false statements does not strengthen the case against this type of energy extraction, it only helps the gas drilling companies who can easily refute some of the mis-truths. This documentary was meant to incite strong emotions and it is successful in doing that.
If our do-nothing zero of a President were really smart like the far left wanted us to believe (highest IQ of any President ever, or so they told us) then he would convene a Manhattan Project or first to the moon- like research team of the best and the brightest to find better ways to get at this much needed energy in a far more safe fashion than we're currently facing. Wouldn't it be a breath of fresh air to see all sides come together for the better good of our nation rather than pitted against each other in battle? Nah, never going to happen...
If our do-nothing zero of a President were really smart like the far left wanted us to believe (highest IQ of any President ever, or so they told us) then he would convene a Manhattan Project or first to the moon- like research team of the best and the brightest to find better ways to get at this much needed energy in a far more safe fashion than we're currently facing. Wouldn't it be a breath of fresh air to see all sides come together for the better good of our nation rather than pitted against each other in battle? Nah, never going to happen...
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Kilgour Farms
I took the one less traveled by
This maybe irrelavent to some but I believe it sets the tone for the rest of the film. Fox starts out saying he is a resident of Millanville, PA, in reality he is a resident from NYC, born and raised there. He has never claimed to be a resident until he filmed Gasland to lend credibility to his film. The land he speaks of is a vaction home that his parents bought in the 70's. He then talks about recieving an offer to lease his property for $5000/acre, no one in this area was offered this much money, $3000 tops.
As far as flaming faucets, not that uncommon in areas with deposits of natural gas. I have methane and sulfur in my well water as do many of my neighbors, some can even light their water on fire and there is no a ng development in the area. Its been the case since water wells were first drilled in the area, long before anyone heard of natural gas being here.
Here is the gas industries perspective and rebuttle on Gasland.
Energy in Depth
As far as flaming faucets, not that uncommon in areas with deposits of natural gas. I have methane and sulfur in my well water as do many of my neighbors, some can even light their water on fire and there is no a ng development in the area. Its been the case since water wells were first drilled in the area, long before anyone heard of natural gas being here.
Here is the gas industries perspective and rebuttle on Gasland.
Energy in Depth
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Look, SCIENCE....
Link: Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
Excerpt:
Based on our data
(Table 2), we found no evidence for contamination of the shallow
wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing
fluids. All of the Naþ, Cl−, Ca2þ, and DIC concentrations in
wells from active drilling areas were consistent with the baseline
historical data, and none of the shallow wells from active drilling
areas had either chloride concentrations >60 mg L−1 or Na-Ca-
Cl compositions that mirrored deeper formation waters (Table 2).
Furthermore, the mean isotopic values of δ18O, δ2H, δ13C-DIC,
δ11B, and 226Ra in active and nonactive areas were indistinguishable.
The 226Ra values were consistent with available historical
data (25), and the composition of δ18O and δ2H in the well-water
appeared to be of modern meteoric origin for Pennsylvania
(26) (Table 2 and Fig. S5). In sum, the geochemical and isotopic
features for water we measured in the shallow wells from both
active and nonactive areas are consistent with historical data
and inconsistent with contamination from mixing Marcellus Shale
formation water or saline fracturing fluids (Table 2).
Link: Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
Excerpt:
Based on our data
(Table 2), we found no evidence for contamination of the shallow
wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing
fluids. All of the Naþ, Cl−, Ca2þ, and DIC concentrations in
wells from active drilling areas were consistent with the baseline
historical data, and none of the shallow wells from active drilling
areas had either chloride concentrations >60 mg L−1 or Na-Ca-
Cl compositions that mirrored deeper formation waters (Table 2).
Furthermore, the mean isotopic values of δ18O, δ2H, δ13C-DIC,
δ11B, and 226Ra in active and nonactive areas were indistinguishable.
The 226Ra values were consistent with available historical
data (25), and the composition of δ18O and δ2H in the well-water
appeared to be of modern meteoric origin for Pennsylvania
(26) (Table 2 and Fig. S5). In sum, the geochemical and isotopic
features for water we measured in the shallow wells from both
active and nonactive areas are consistent with historical data
and inconsistent with contamination from mixing Marcellus Shale
formation water or saline fracturing fluids (Table 2).
Dr. Gonzo
Stuck in my cabana, livin on bananas and blow.
Yes, science....what do the scientists have to say? I haven't read this whole report yet, but I was confused why you were citing an excerpt that pertains only to contamination from fracturing fluid and brines when the report is entitled "Methane Contamination...". So I checked the summary for their findings on what they were actually studying.....
Perhaps Gasland isn't so far off after all:
"Our results show evidence for methane contamination of shallow drinking-water systems in at least three areas of the region and suggest important environmental risks accompanying shale-gas exploration worldwide."
Specifically they found that:
"In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest
gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L−1 (n ¼ 26), a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neighboring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar
geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mgL−1 (P < 0.05; n ¼ 34). Average δ13C-CH4 values of dissolved methane in shallow groundwater were significantly less negative
for active than for nonactive sites."
The study also determined that the methane was "consistent with deeper thermogenic methane sources such as the Marcellus and Utica shales at the active sites and matched gas geochemistry from gas wells nearby.
And their conclusion:
"We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and—possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use..."
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Absolutely... methane migration obviously happens. I've pointed that out for years. But it PROBABLY has nothing to do with the hydraulic fracturing process. It has to do with the casing job in the well bore. Some would have people believe that this well contamination is fracturing chemicals (how many posts HERE about Dimock water) when, according to this science, the water in these wells is NOT impacted by hydraulic fracturing chemicals.
I do not know how the casing jobs are regulated in Pennsylvania. Accidents can happen, but with a well bore casing job, it can be fixed. Let the DEC determine what the best practice is and enforce it.
THIS research shows that what we have heard time and time again, Fracturing fluids in water wells, is NOT the experience of THESE scientists in their SMALL study.
Trouser Trout
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
I have lighted my own flatulence, but as powerful as I am, I am only one man in a world with great energy needs.
Dr. Gonzo
Stuck in my cabana, livin on bananas and blow.
Probably? That's very resassuring
First off, what does the study that you linked say? As I noted I haven't read the whole thing but I assume they must have made some effort to determine whether the methane migration was due to faulty casings.
Secondly, the EPA found back in 2004 that methane migration could occur due to the combination of intense pressure from the fracking process and naturally occurring fissures deep underground.
Thirdly, creating a casing is a part of the hydraulic fracturing process. Failure of the casing obviously is not part of the process but it happens and has to be factored into the review and regulatory process.
This thread is about Gasland, or so I thought. And in this very same thread KF posted that the methane contamination (which was documented in Gasland) had nothing to do with fracking. Then you posted a link to a scientific article that not only goes directly against what KF said, but also supports the "facts" depicted by the film that is supposedly inaccurate. Forgive me for putting the pieces together.
Their study that was focused on answering a different question - whether methane contamination in drinking water was related to nearby gas drilling. Which they answered in the affirmative.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Probably? That's very resassuring
Yeah, I'm hoping you'll see and appreciate my trying to be intellectually honest.
That research brought this up (well bore casing jobs)as a probable reason for the migration of methane. I happen to believe it. They also mention the idea of natural faults. I find this very hard to believe (as do many geologists) given the depth of these deposits as well as the variety of differing layers above the gas(at least in our neck of the woods... out west there is a LOT of faulting and past vulcanism which have in some places caused intense undulating layering which we do not have).
I'd like to know what formations they studied. Do you know? Anything in the east?
Casing a well WAS to separate the gas from shallow water zones, to in fact keep gas from migrating into aquifers. I believe that NOW, casing the well bore is also to prevent drilling mud/fracturing solutions from entering water zones. I NY's regulations, there are pages and pages of rules pertaining to properly casing of the wells. It IS regulated.
I don't see where he posted that methane contamination has nothing to do with fracking, but I don't speak for him either. I think he DID point to the gas lighting in the movie was NOT gas well gas, but naturally forming biogenic gas, as determined by the state of Colorado. The FACT is that Josh Fox showed biogenic gas flaring out of a water tap, but led his viewers to believe that the gas industry was to blame.
Colorado responds: http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND DOC.pdf
In the Duke study, it seems they tested a BUNCH of water wells in the Dimock area. They found thermogenic gas. Pennsylvania determined a LONG time ago, that the problems in Dimock were caused by poor casing jobs. I believe the drilling company had to either fix or plug four different wells. It does NOT surprise me that they found thermogenic gas in those water samples. What DID surprise me was this:
"Methane concentrations were detected generally in 51 of 60
drinking-water wells (85%) across the region, regardless of gas
industry operations, but concentrations were substantially higher
closer to natural-gas wells (Fig. 3)."
I wonder though, if the research was skewed because they chose to do the research in an area where there were known to be poorly cased wells.
But they found NO fracking chemicals...
Remember the photo of the dimock water (on this site) and everyone being told how toxic the water was... But seriously, again, they chose to do their research in an area with KNOWN failed well casings. I hope MORE research is done near more "average" wells, not those that are the poster kids for what NOT to do when drilling a well.
Kilgour Farms
I took the one less traveled by
The title of the report is misleading.
The test samples were very limited and concentrated in NE PA, if they had tested the SWPA the outcome would have had different results.
They found thermogenic gas in 85% of the wells tested across the region even in areas where no development has taken place.
This study is based on old technologies and PA has since has increased their requirements for well casings.
Energy in Depth
Think what you want but Gasland is what it is, fiction.
The test samples were very limited and concentrated in NE PA, if they had tested the SWPA the outcome would have had different results.
They found thermogenic gas in 85% of the wells tested across the region even in areas where no development has taken place.
This study is based on old technologies and PA has since has increased their requirements for well casings.
Energy in Depth
Think what you want but Gasland is what it is, fiction.
Last edited:
I couldnt agree more except I believe people have to start lowering the standard of thier living or we will destroy the earth for all of our future generations. We have to teach our kids how to live a much more simple lifestyle. Make them understand that every little thing they do has a huge impact when compounded by the amount of people doing it.
Gasland isn't fiction, it's biased -- and that's OK. For what it's worth, documentaries aren't supposed to be unbiased, rather document a perspective in a single point in time: Documentary film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't generally like documentaries and I can't say that I enjoyed Gasland. That said, a picture is worth a thousand words and the guy lighting his water on fire is an image that still stays with me.
I don't generally like documentaries and I can't say that I enjoyed Gasland. That said, a picture is worth a thousand words and the guy lighting his water on fire is an image that still stays with me.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
Docu-ganda...I like it.
From your link:
The commercial success of these documentaries may derive from this narrative shift in the documentary form, leading some critics to question whether such films can truly be called documentaries; critics sometimes refer to these works as "mondo films" or "docu-ganda."
Josh Fox is just a student of the historical origins of his Docu-ganda genre. I guess he's in good company.
Again from your link:
1920s–1940sThe propagandist tradition consists of films made with the explicit purpose of persuading an audience of a point. One of the most notorious propaganda films is Leni Riefenstahl's film Triumph of the Will (1935), which chronicled the 1934 Nazi Party Congress and was commissioned by Adolf Hitler. Leftist filmmakers Joris Ivens and Henri Storck directed Borinage (1931) about the Belgian coal mining region. Luis Buñuel directed a "surrealist" documentary Las Hurdes (1933).
Pare Lorentz's The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936) and The River (1938) and Willard Van Dyke's The City (1939) are notable New Deal productions, each presenting complex combinations of social and ecological awareness, government propaganda, and leftist viewpoints. Frank Capra's Why We Fight (1942–1944) series was a newsreel series in the United States, commissioned by the government to convince the U.S. public that it was time to go to war. Constance Bennett and her husband Henri de la Falaise produced two feature length documentaries, Legong: Dance of the Virgins (1935) filmed in Bali, and Kilou the Killer Tiger (1936) filmed in Indochina.
In Canada the Film Board, set up by John Grierson, was created for the same propaganda reasons. It also created newsreels that were seen by their national governments as legitimate counter-propaganda to the psychological warfare of Nazi Germany (orchestrated by Joseph Goebbels).
It's unfortunate that what sticks with you is a guy lighting what amounts to swamp gas, having nothing to do with drilling companies' activities. Not fiction, huh? But I'm sure Joseph Goebbels would buy Josh a beer and give him a pat on the back.
I cannot believe it this long to compare those who don't support fracking to Nazis. Nazis aren't the only ones to have ever used propaganda, which is a very subjective term. I would venture to say Sara Palin, Rush Limbough (sp?), and Glen Beck are propagandists as well. Or is rhetoricians. Either way all of this type of BS gets far away from the real debate: "Do the rewards of fracking justify the risks and costs?" At least that is the question I care about.
Trouser Trout
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
I believe the Nazi's would have perfected gas exploration if just given the chance...Ahhhh what could have been.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
I'm sorry, it came from from the site he sent me to. I was not comparing antis to nazis, but one propagandist to another infamous one. Hey, did you point out the nazi thing when the pro drillers were subjected to that treatment before. I'll answer for you; no you didn't. Funny, huh?
As to your question, yes. All the people in NYC and NJ who are burning fracked gas from PA and WV are voting yes with their dollars.
Here's a question for you, 35,000 people die every year due to motor vehicle accidents, hundreds of thousands are maimed and injured. Hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide are sped along by the pollutants in exhaust as well as being a contributor to global warming. Is it worth the risks to use motor vehicles? Do you(would you) put your kids in one of those death traps?
Trouser Trout
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
I am trying to stay out of the fracking frackus but, FF using one potentially dangerous activity to justify another potentially dangerous activity is silly.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
You've said this before. And I've said that I'm not using it to justify the other, but to point out the hypocrisy of one who would be against one risky activity while engaging in activities which have proven risks more dire than the activity they are against. I think THAT is silly.
The hypocrisy: So in order to drive a car and not be a hypocrite, do I need condone all potentially risky activities?
Or should I try to balance the risk with the reward on a case-by-case basis using my great big brain. At least until it stops getting in the way and my stupid hands become flippers.
Or should I try to balance the risk with the reward on a case-by-case basis using my great big brain. At least until it stops getting in the way and my stupid hands become flippers.
