‘Gasland Part II’ director uses hoax as evidence against fracking


From The DailyCaller.com,  by Michael Bastasch, 07/09/13 –

Filmmaker and anti-fracking activist Josh Fox’s new film “Gasland Part II”  uses a Texas environmentalist’s hoax to show hydraulic fracturing allegedly  contaminating water.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that the controversial anti-fracking  sequel features a scene where a Texas landowner is able to light the contents of  his garden hose on fire. This is then used as evidence that nearby oil and gas  operations  caused the contamination.

However, a Texas court ruled that the scene was a hoax concocted by an  environmental activist  engaged in a prolonged battle with a local gas company. The  environmentalist sought to inflate the dangers of fracking.

Texas’ 43rd Judicial District Court found last year that the Texas landowner,   “under the advice or direction” of environmental activist Alisa Rich,  “intentionally attach[ed] a garden hose to a gas vent — not a water line” and  lit it on fire.

“This demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local  and national news media  a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was  burning,” the court ruled.

The ruling was in response to a defamation complaint brought by gas company  Range Resources, which has fracking operations in the area.

According to the Free Beacon, Rich worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to  issue an endangerment order against Range Resources. The order was withdrawn  once the agency could not prove that local water pollution came from oil and gas  operations.

“Gasland Part II” is the sequel to Fox’s Oscar-nominated 2010 anti-fracking  film “Gasland,” premiering Monday night.

The first “Gasland” showed scenes of people near fracking operations being  able to light their tap water on fire, but was criticized as misleading.

Filmmaker Phelim McAleer, director of the documentary “FrackNation”, confronted Fox on his claims of groundwater contamination in  towns where flammable faucets had been a problem for decades before fracking  operations began. Fox said he did not think such information was relevant.

Follow Michael on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without  charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For  licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/08/gasland-part-ii-director-uses-hoax-as-evidence-against-fracking/#ixzz2YZdVL2Ns

5 responses

  1. In addition, most of the information in Gasland (the first movie) is a “hoax” as well! The movie “Fracknation” (can be found at this link: http://fracknation.com/ ) details that many of the water wells in Pennsylvania can be set on fire – the town in the movie even had a fountain that burned continually on the square at one time. And part of the video shows the EPA telling the couple in the original movie that they found no contaminants in their well water to which the man becomes irate and kicks them out. In addition, the fellow making the movie debunks the earthquake question and most other of the information contained therein. If anyone would like to see Fracknation, I will be happy to loan them mine if they do not want to purchase it.

  2. Senator_Blutarsky

    Pumping water underground could trigger major earthquake, say scientists

    New studies suggest injecting water for geothermal power or fracking can lead to larger earthquakes than previously thought

    “It is already known that pumping large quantities of water underground can induce minor earthquakes near to geothermal power generation and fracking sites. However, the new evidence reveals the potential for much larger earthquakes, of magnitude 4 or 5, related to the weakening of pre-existing undergrounds faults through increased fluid pressure.

    The water injection appears to prime cracks in the rock, making them vulnerable to triggering by tremors from earthquakes thousands of miles away. Nicholas van der Elst, the lead author on one of three studies published on Thursday in the journal Science, said: “These fluids are driving faults to their tipping point.”

    Prof Brodsky said they found a clear correlation between the amount of water extracted and injected into the ground, and the number of earthquakes.”


    1. There are “experts” to say most anything you want these days… Here is a research project that came to the opposite conclusion;


      Fracking definitely has an effect on everything – but so does heavy hauling and the blasting that goes on in mines and the nuclear power plants – Fukushima comes to mind!

      Because our business deals with fracking, we have experienced it first hand and have yet to “feel” anything when the actual fracking is taking place nor have we heard of any earthquakes in any of the areas that we know have been fracked. We have been at this for over 2 years now.

      So, does fracking CAUSE earthquakes – probably not. Does it increase the magnitude when an earthquake occurs? Perhaps if all the elements are in place for an earthquake to occur. But we must remind ourselves that even the Bible prophesies that there will be earthquakes!

      I, for one, have not found a way to live without electricity, and by extension natural gas since it is used to power the nuclear plants quite often, and have found in my research that fracking is much safer than it is portrayed! Before we opted to go into this line of work, we did tons of research for this very reason.

      One other point that must be made is that drilling is more often than not a bigger instigator of earthquakes than is fracking – just saying :>)

      If anyone does not like fracking (and drilling), then turn off all your electric products (until you find and begin using a different source of energy) and stop driving your car(s) (unless they are solely running on electricity – oh yes, that is produced by natural gas too – sorry, that won’t work either :>)

      I believe that all of us lay people would love to see solar and wind generated power be the norm. But until a major number of people discontinue the use of electricity, fracking is going to be common and probably even increase in frequency.

      1. Senator_Blutarsky

        No – one does NOT need to turn off the electricity to question fracking . Nor do I need to quit driving my vehicles – that is a cheap misused juxtaposition based on a faulty premise.

        As the former owner of an environmental cleanup & recovery company, I employed hydro-geologists and hydro-physicists. Our work and studies included all areas of water-related topics, from groundwater runoff to deep-well injection and all points in between.

        I believe there is a delicate balance required to protect our natural water resources and to extract energy. At this point the public is basically held hostage by the extraction and production side of the discussion. ” Profit-driven ” interests usually fall back to a default position, just as you have with your comment above. I seem to recall a similar premise in the late 80s- remember Clayton Williams ? In his run for Governor , he used an allegory of if a woman is being raped, she might as well lay back and enjoy it . It cost him the Governors seat. So any “argument” that says – we must get these resources despite the problems and concerns that arise are just part of the price we pay , is just as faulty.

        The public also needs to be aware of the tremendous strain on water resources required to frack a single well. Here is a snip from a recent Forbes magazine article –

        ” Shale energy production is a thirsty business.

        To free up the oil and gas from shale deposits, anywhere from two to 10 million gallons of water (along with sand and chemicals) are injected into each fracturing well. Multiply that times tens of thousands of wells and you’re talking lots of water. The impacts are even worse when wells are tightly concentrated.

        While much of the national fracking debate has focused on water contamination from chemicals, another big concern, especially in the West, is volume water use.

        The past few years has seen a mad-dash scramble of shale energy production – and the sucking sound of water withdrawals – across much of the West and Southwest. Texas has been the biggest producer and water user by far, followed by Pennsylvania, Colorado and Arkansas. Texas shale producers used about 25 billion gallons of water last year and substantially more will be used as more drilling takes place in the rich Eagle Ford formation. In some rural Texas counties, fracking accounts for 10 to 25 percent of water use and is projected to eclipse 50 percent in the future.”

        Fracking in its present technology structure seems to do more harm than good. We the public need to strive for a much better balance of water conservation than is presently being foisted on the public. J.R. Ewing would be cracking his most evil smile at todays situation , and send a hireling in the legislature to capture billions on the water side and make it a win-win for JR and the boys.

      2. Senator_Blutarsky

        Before anyone misinterprets my comment about “profit-driven” agendas above, be advised that I am very “pro market”. Many would call me an anarcho-capitalist as I believe government regulations and restrictions greatly hamper the profit motive. I personally believe most govt agencies should be abolished entirely, including the EPA.

        But I am very much against “profit-FIRST” agendas, at the the cost of the public well-being.

        A business is not a free hand to do whatever increases the bottom line profit.

        Simple example – the bartender who waters down your drink. The restaurant who charges for Angus grass-fed beef and serves you swill from a feedlot.

        All the way up to monopoly “faux capitalists” who are in bed with legislators so that they get sweetheart deals and undeserved predatory advantages. That would include human trash like Corzine, who can literally steal billions and not go to prison.

        What, then, do they want a government for? Not to regulate commerce; not to educate the people;
        not to teach religion, not to administer charity; not to make roads and railways; but simply
        to defend the natural rights of man — to protect person and property — to prevent the
        aggressions of the powerful upon the weak — in a word, to administer justice. This is the
        natural, the original, office of a government. It was not intended to do less: it ought not to be allowed to do more.

        Herbert Spencer, “The Proper Sphere of Government” [1843]

%d bloggers like this: