MovieChat Forums > Promised Land (2013) Discussion > I am honestly undecided on fracking

I am honestly undecided on fracking

posted 12 years ago by hitfan
8 replies | jump to latest

Full disclosure: fracking has affected my livelihood in some respects because I live in an area where conventional (non-fracking) natural gas is produced. So with fracking causing gas prices to drop, I've seen economic activity where I live drop because of it.

But, if technology has expanded energy resources, then I think that is good for the overall population, and if the value of my house drops a bit, then so be it. There's more to life than money.

Ive seen Gasland -- and the accusations against fracking are quite damning and serious. But it seemed to be very one-sided and misleading. Why show the drama of somebody igniting his tapwater, if that was actually a known phenomenon that occurred in the area prior to the occurrence of fracking?

I've also seen the gas indsutry's video response Truthland, and it reeks of industry propaganda. So who to believe?

Then I hear that OPEC is funding Promised Land -- it is in their economic self interest to badmouth fracking so that conventional energy resource producers can make increased profits.

Which makes me think--what if the coal industry are the ones who are also funding the anti-fracking movement? It would also be in their interest for them to do so. As Obama pointed out, it's not regulations against coal that has caused their industry to suffer, it's that fracking for natural gas has caused energy prices to drop overall.

The point is, is that energy politics are very interesting. Consider the case of global warming activism. Margaret Thatcher (PM of the UK in the 1980s) actually funded global warming research in order to attack coal. Why would she attack coal? Well, the coal miners' union were major political opponents of her's. Do a Google search on Arthur Scargill to find out about that history.

And France, who is a major exporter of electricity produced by nuclear power plants is 1000% behind the theory of global warming. They stand to benefit from any global warming treaty.

So it would be dishonest for me to be anti-fracking and claim that I care about the environment in my case. I would stand to benefit if a law was passed to ban it's practice.

[–] hitfan 12 years ago

PS: I just finished watching the trailer for Promised Land. It seems to hit all the right notes: small town values, with the sales executive struggling with his conscience.

I'll probably watch it anyway, simply because I think it is an interesting piece of propaganda. And me and my wife, and our friends constantly argue about energy politics. The irony is that they all work for the oil and gas industry, but they are 100% behind the movie Gasland, whereas I take a more nuanced and cynical view of it (and I'm not employed by oil & gas, I just live in an area where it's a major employer).

[–] baconbit 12 years ago

Gasland was PROVEN to be *beep* Plain and simple. And once more, Josh Fox ADMITTED he knew it was *beep* but he didn't include the truth because "it was irrelevant"

The biggest part of Gasland was the lighting of the water on fire. However. EVERYONE in that town has known for DECADES that their water table is contaminated with methane. Again..this has been well known, and well established since at LEAST the 1930s. Well before fracking took place. There is verifiable reports of residents of the same town lighting their water on fire from the 70s and 80s. Again, long before fracking. (It is just common sense too since the methane from the fracking can't travel 2 miles UPWARDS through solid rock to get to the water table.)

And again, when Josh Fox was asked about this, he admitted that he knew that the methane did not come from fracking, but didn't feel it was "relevant" to his film to mention that. Because his film was not trying to give facts. He comes from the Michael Moore school of "documentaries" which is to slant as much as possible, and then that is not enough, blatantly lie.

[–] thepartydjz 12 years ago

I've seen so much mis-information in most of these posts it's bordering on ridiculous. The methane you speak of was there but was disturbed and redistributed because of the fracking. A responsible environmental survey previous to the drilling would've exposed this threat.

There is much more to the process of fracking than most people realize. The drills are going up so fast right now in Pennsylvania they have thrown caution to the wind, the quick buck is chosen over responsibility to the environment.

Then there is the issue of other chemicals making their way into the water supply, radioactive chemicals.

[–] sd45-1 11 years ago

I hardly think Gasland was all solely about drawing a connection between fracking and lighting water on fire.

That seems to be a manufactured claim of its foes, being that its so easy to introduce doubt.

[–] hrstar24 11 years ago

Lighting the faucet on fire is by far the most important scene in that movie. 90% of the people against frac'ing who don't know what they are talking about reference this scene. Josh Fox knew it would be the centerpiece of the movie and would be a very powerful image.

What he forgot to point out was that people in that exact same area of Colorado have been reporting quite frequently that they have methane in their water wells since the 1970's, waaaaaaaay before frac'ing ever got introduced in Colorado. How can you honestly say that your "documentary" is truthful when you leave this fact out?

[–] baconbit 12 years ago

Also...there hasn't been a single SCIENTIFIC study that has shown any dangers of fracking. Not one.

[–] coop032 12 years ago

The film pretty much ends without having a clear message that fracking is good or bad in my opinion. There's just the small possibility of horrible things happening, and the people have to be willing to decide if its worth the chance of losing everything.

[–] frogca 11 years ago

>there hasn't been a single SCIENTIFIC study that has shown any dangers of fracking. Not one.

I had never heard about the farm animal thing portrayed in the film, so I googled.

http://ecowatch.com/2012/01/16/cornell-study-links-fracking-wastewater-with-mortality-in-farm-animals/

Oddly enough, Cornell was where the high school teacher character got his PhD, I seem to recall.

I did a literature search on fracking and health, at the Web of Science database. Several articles stated the problem was lack of rigorous evidence. Unfortunately the mixtures are propriety, and privacy in this case is a disservice to the public, and to scientific research.

You can download the peer-reviewed Cornell article (pdf) linked in this story:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2082668/fracking_poses_risk_to_uk_farm_animals_and_food_safety_experts_warn.html