FrackNation (2013)

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

I found this movie very informative. Also I have discussed this issue of horizontal fracking and they say there is no issue. Problems if any are isolated cases. Ranch owners in Kansas, Texas and Bakken all have made big money as they got millions of dollar to give permit to oil companies to drill for shale oil/gas. UI think folks in Delaware and NY are misguided. They are losing an opportunity to make big bucks. Also considering that today most Agricultural and farm products are not very profitable due to falling prices and due to Big AG and Big farm cutting their profits they would do well to allow drilling. They are losing an opportunity to make big bucks. Also considering that today most Agriculturla and farmproducts are not very profitable due to flling prices they would do well to alow drilling

Phelim McAleer in "FrackNation" provides a well researched, thorough, entertaining, and scientific rebuttal to the emotional pleas provided in Josh Fox's "GasLand." Opponents of hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking) would have us believe that the human push-and-pull of fueling civilization versus conserving the biosphere is a left-versus-right or climate change supporter versus denier phenomenon; in fact it is a conflict of science versus emotion. This is the genius of "GasLand": we want to get emotionally angry over a cause. "FrackNation," however, tosses some ice onto those smoldering embers with cold facts.Nothing is more damaging to the platform of "GasLand" supporters than Fox's multiple refusals to answer pointed questions from McAleer:McAleer: "Isn't it true that decades before fracking started, that there was methane in the water there?" (regarding the flammable tap water) Fox: "Can you identify yourself?" McAleer: "My name is Philem McAleer." Fox: "Okay, where are you from?" McAleer: "I'm a journalist."Fox: "Journalist from where?" McAleer: "From Ireland." Fox: "From Ireland?" McAleer: "Yes. Isn't it true..." Fox: "You're concerned about the fracking going on in Ireland?" McAleer: "No, I'm concerned about the accuracy of the documentary."Fox: "You're a journalist for what paper?"On the surface, a cause's champion refusing to answer the opposition is unsettling but it goes further; Fox's thinly veiled attempts to impugn the credentials of McAleer--even his nationality--and his absolute refusal to respond to challenges to "GasLand's" documentary authenticity leave the watcher mentally ticking off points in McAleer's column. But there's more.At another point, Fox repeatedly refuses to engage MacAleer in conversation at an event held at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles. Eventually McAleer and his director are ejected from the event... scientific dialog indeed. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, McAleer obtains video from the US Government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the largest environmental regulatory body in the world. In this video, the Sautner family--the champions of "GasLand"--were presented with the results of an EPA sampling of their well water, demonstrating that the well water was not contaminated. The Sautners react with emotion: the wife storms out, the husband demanding the results are false, and the EPA representative stating "we found no contaminants."Scientific and methodical thinking people of the entire political spectrum are forced by this film to consider the evidence of the hydraulic fracturing issue and see the opponents reacting with emotional pleas and the supporters providing clear and well documented science. --oversoul

At first I was thinking that it was nice that an independent felt so positive toward fracking. Then I began to realize the "independent" meant something different than I thought. Some examples follow.The representative from the Texas environmental agency stated that of the 50 air samples from Best, TX none of them exceeded the short-term exposure limits set by the EPA. This seems to sound good, but short-term exposure limits might be suitable for a worker only exposed a few hours a day. They aren't suitable for a general population exposure on an ongoing basis. So, what were the results from these 50 tests when measured against general air quality standards? Another example is citing the earthquakes from the Geysers Geothermic plant in California. The plant did not "cause" the earthquakes. The earthquakes are a natural occurring phenomenon that go hand-in-hand with the geysers.They stated that it fracking was responsible for almost no earthquakes. While this may technically be true, it is extremely misleading. It is the disposal wells used for the chemicals used for fracking that cause the earthquakes. These have steadily been increasing. Now there are several 4.0 magnitude earthquakes month in the Oklahoma area. There is no responsible person denying the linkage with fracking. To state otherwise is like the tobacco industry saying that smoking does not cause lung cancer.My concern is that the chemicals disposed into the earth may follow fracture lines created by the earthquakes and contaminate the aquifer. This aquifer covers 174,000 square miles under parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. Could we possibly make these regions uninhabitable? I know this is probably unlikely, but what if it happened? There would be no going back! The fracking industry was exempted from the Clean Water and Clean Drinking Water acts. The narrator explains that this was so the states could regulate them. This seems ludicrous to me. We all know why they might get such an exemption and it is not comforting.They quoted a professor who was world-renowned in his expert testimony saying that chemicals that were listed as carcinogenic were listed that way because they were given in massive doses to rats. He stated that those findings did not mean they were carcinogenic to humans. How misleading is that? Perhaps we should totally ignore cancer research into carcinogenic pathogens.I turned the movie off before the last 20 minutes finished. It fell far short of presenting the unbiased view I had hoped to find.

INEXCUSABLE of Phelim (sounds like a quaint and olde Irish pronunciation of film) to totally skip the concept of Global Climate changes r/t rising Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Carbon Monoxide (among others) which could cause catastrophic flooding - even lead to extinction events within a century. Water pollution consequences have been admitted to even by Fracking Industry sources, but Phelim's film keeps reiterating a claim of 'absolutely nothing to see here, all fracking is totally o.k.'!! Same for all of the other mentioned problems like earthquakes, air pollution, land losses, fires, etc. - TOTAL DENIAL! No way, Jose... If Josh Fox is a fraudulent huckster as Phelim would portray him, then it is MOST abundantly clear that Phelim is way worse, and I would venture that he and his adherents are quite dangerously so.