11 Comments

1. Colleen says:

   Jul 6th, 2010 at 17:37

   We need to continue to push for our local, state and national politicians to view this film- no one (with a soul) will come away from seeing Gasland without a vomitous pit in their stomach…
2. marlo thomas says:

   Jul 6th, 2010 at 09:25

   mr. marczynski, while you shill for the oil and gas industry, more impartial information can be found at propublica.org, who’s done an extensive series of articles about the industry, most of which debunk your industry-written claims (and they are claims, not impartial studies done by neutral parties).

   here’s one about a recent cattle quarantine required by the PA dept. of agriculture, due to seepage of fracking waste water into their water supply (livestock from CO to LA has been documented as killed by drinking well water exposed to fracking chemicals):

   http://www.propublica.org/article/a-fracking-first-in-pennsylvania-cattle-quarantine

   “natural” gas production,like oil, is exempt from the clean water, clean air and superfund acts, thanks to dick cheney and the energy companies who helped to write the 2005 energy act. if hydrofracturing was so safe, why is the industry scared of a reversal of these exemptions? why do they push to “drill here, drill now”? because any further study of same would reveal the falsehoods spouted by industry. why are the nearly 400 chemicals involved in the process considered a “trade secret”? no points if you liken it to the coca-cola formula.

   to date, NO federal, state or municipal body has done long-term study of chemically-laden hydrofracturing, save for NYC’s department of water. highlights of their study can be found here:

   http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2256

   a quote from the article:

   Last year, however, New York City — concerned about the spread of hydro fracturing into the city’s 1,585-square-mile watershed in the Catskill Mountains and upper Delaware River basin — hired a team of geologists to assess fracking’s impact. Although the city’s watershed makes up only 8.5 percent of New York State’s share of the Marcellus region, the city’s study raised a large red flag as scientists argued that significant risk of water pollution was endemic to the fracking process.

   “Intensive natural gas well development in the watershed,” the study said, “brings an increased level of risk to the water supply: risk of degrading source water quality, risk to long-term watershed health… risk of damaging critical infrastructure, and the risk of exposing watershed residents and potentially NYC residents to chronic low levels of toxic chemicals.” The city’s report said that while a single well may be environmentally benign, the risks become unacceptable “when evaluated in the context of hundreds or thousands of other wells.”

   the gas and oil industries (and they are inextricably linked) don’t care about long-term costs and effects–just what they can get now. they’ve proven adept at getting what they want of a region’s natural resources and fleeing. is there a natural gas shortage in the u.s.? no. can it be obtained by safe methods? yes, but not via chemical hydrofracturing, and at the depths beneath the marcellus shale.

   will the industry and landowners put up a bond to ensure collateral damage to the economic viability a state like new york has is not threatened? not likely. does it bring jobs? no–the industry uses cowboys that move from project to project. do they pay for the millions of gallons of local drinking water required to mix with their chemical brew for each and every well? no–they usually manage to get off with a minimal “permitting fee”, and take all the water they like, in the name of their so-called economic benefits.

   so if there’s no shortage of “natural” gas in the u.s., what’s the hurry? it’s a commodity, sold on the worldwide market. northern europe has been itching to get off the russian gas breast for years (does anyone remember the pipeline cutoffs there during one of the coldest winters in the past couple of years?). they will pay for the export of our gas.

   how’s that “energy independence” thing workin’ for ya?
3. Graham_Land says:

   Jul 5th, 2010 at 17:14

   I can’t pretend to be an expert on this topic, as I just watched the film with an open mind. Also, before I watched it I did read an article on a blog claiming it was bunk, particularly the biogenic gas fires coming out of the tap not being the result of fracking.

   Yet there were plenty of pretty scary and convincing things from the film.

   Anyway, in the interest of ‘tit for tat’ on fracking, regardless of the film, here is an article from Scientific American which makes no reference to Gasland. It seems there is evidence of contamination at some sites and enough concern that the EPA has launched a new review on the practice.
   /
   http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing
   /
   Perhaps fracking can be done safelyor more safely but it seems that in some cases (for whatever reason) that isn’t happening.
4. Michelle says:

   Jul 5th, 2010 at 15:13

   http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/
5. Graham_Land says:

   Jul 4th, 2010 at 17:45

   I admit I don’t like loopholes. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were designed to protect publicly owned American lands. Who in the hell would be happy that these important laws were circumvented, especially for payoffs which overwhelmingly benefit the usual suspects: fossil fuel giants and Halliburton? The EPA had its hands tied for 8 years in the USA and so they could not be depended on. At least some independent studies should be carried out so that information does not just come from ultra-lobbied oil and gas agencies and self-regulating industry. Need I point out the towering example of BP?
   In this situation of rule by capitalism rather than democracy we unfortunately sometimes have to depend on journalism, anecdotes (which are worthy of being investigated rather than simply shrugged off or buried) and yes, documentary films when the government agencies cannot be relied on. Surely all these cases at least deserve attention?
6. Louis Marczynski says:

   Jul 4th, 2010 at 15:34

   John Barnes, please check out the following link on Mark Markam’s tap water investigation by the COGCC. http://cogcc.state.co.us/cogis/ComplaintReport.asp?doc_num=200190138. I agree that certain organizations can be biased. The same holds true for movies, documentaries, etc.

   Graham Land, anecdotal evidence alone is not sufficient to label an industry practice as bad and harmful to the enivironment. Your politics is getting in the way of good judgement. I know the industry is isn’t perfect but, oil and gas companies has been fracking wells for 60 years. Hydraulic fracturing has been used in more than one million wells in the United States, and studies by the EPA and GWPC have confirmed no direct link between hydraulic fracturing operations and groundwater impacts.
7. Graham_Land says:

   Jul 4th, 2010 at 13:58

   Thanks for your comments.
   /
   Louis – The film is not a scientific study, yet is a decent and pretty exhaustive piece of journalism, full of anecdotal evidence. It exposed a lot of worrying aspects about natural gas extraction in the US.
   /
   If we only rely on the heavily lobbied government agencies and the gas companies themselves for information, it seems they don’t come through. The scientists who are critical of fracking, such as the EPA man in the film and the expert chemist, give weight to these worries because they have the necessary knowledge to explain the “whys and hows” as opposed to the residents who suffer from bad air and water, who know that something is wrong and the circumstances surrounding their plight, but aren’t qualified to accurately explain it in scientific terms.
   /
   For me, the politics which led to this unregulated free-for-all was the most disturbing thing of all, because the Bush administration opened up protected lands and gave reign to gas and oil companies over so much of the environment and potentially the health of millions of people.
8. John Barnes says:

   Jul 4th, 2010 at 13:06

   Louis Marczynski, I found your post to be a very interesting read, and would probably believe the pasted information you have shown except for the fact that it is taken from America’s Natural Gas Alliance website, so naturally, I’m skeptical. A link to non-biased information would be good.
9. Louis Marczynski says:

   Jul 4th, 2010 at 00:17

   The following is from America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) web-site. It provides the facts that were ignored in this “so-called” documentary.

   In the film’s signature moment Mike Markham, a landowner, ignites his tap water. The film leaves the viewer with the impression the flaming tap water is a result of natural gas drilling. However, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which tested Markham’s water in 2008, at his request, methane in his water supply had “no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.” Instead the investigation found that the cause was “biogenic” in nature, meaning it was naturally occurring due to the fact that his water well had been drilled into a natural gas pocket.

   The film leaves a clear—and false—perception that hydraulic fracturing was to blame. This is simply not true, and there are several examples where the film veers from the facts. A second depiction of a flaming faucet in the home of Renee McClure in Colorado also leaves viewers with a false impression about the connection between gas industry activities and methane in water wells. McClure’s well was sampled by the state and it, too, showed only naturally occurring methane.

   Once again, natural gas is falsely linked when the film flashes the words “35 mile fish kill Dunkard Creek Washington County PA.’’ The Environmental Protection Agency investigated and tied the fish kills in Dunkard Creek to coal mine run-off. Here is the official report and a story on it in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

   Contrary to film claims, natural gas production is subject to federal, state and local regulations that cover everything from initial permits to well construction to water disposal. The natural gas community is committed to being good neighbors and responsible stewards of the land, and we are committed to answering the public’s questions and concerns in a factual and science-based way.

   In rare cases where incidents have occurred, companies have worked with the appropriate regulatory authority to identify and correct the issue, and to implement measures to ensure they don’t recur. ANGA member companies understand and respect people’s concerns and questions about the safety of their water and air, and we are committed to engaging in dialogue with community members, policymakers and stakeholders to talk about the safety of natural gas production and the opportunities natural gas offers communities across our country.

   Natural gas is a clean, abundant and domestic energy source that has created 2.8 million American jobs and is vital to our nation’s clean-energy future and economy. Hydraulic fracturing is a proven technology that has been refined over 60 years. It has allowed companies to safely produce natural gas from more than 1 million U.S. wells. The Environmental Protection Agency, Ground Water Protection Council, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and others have all examined the process and found it to be safe.
10. Graham_Land says:

    Jul 3rd, 2010 at 22:27

    Thanks very much for posting the link to your site, Lisa. Shocking stuff.
11. Lisa Bracken says:

    Jul 3rd, 2010 at 18:14

    There has been a great deal of cover up on the part of the natural gas industry when it comes to what it does 7,000 feet underground. Lighting our creek on fire launched a half-decade journey to the truth. If you want to know why hydraulic fracturing is a flawed approach to natural gas extraction, I’ve outlined the process and what I believe are it’s most egregious failures here: journeyoftheforsaken.com/fracpage.htm
    Along with an anecdotal description of process, are many scientific perspectives on this immature and dangerous technology.