Commentary Of The Film 'Gasland' By Josh Fox

Imbued with continuous fabrications, Gasland by Josh Fox is a less reliable argument on hydraulic fracking compared to FrackNation by Phelim McAleer. Hydraulic fracturing, is a technique used by the oil and gas industry to extract natural gas from rock thousands of feet underground. The process includes pumping millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals underground. Gasland is filled with multiple concerns and warnings of the breakdown of the chemicals causing harm to our environment. Josh Fox relies heavily on repetition of facts in his film by giving statements and no information to back them up. In Gasland pathos is used frequently to catch the audiences soft spot, making them feel guilty about what fracking is doing to the environment.

“Fracking: the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc., so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas”(Google). Ten years ago no one would have thought hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” would have caused such environmental harm; infecting public and private water systems, cutting down national parks, and causing extraneous health problems.

Thesis: Today I will discuss a very important issue that is happening in our own backyard. Hydraulic Fracturing, also known as “Fracking”, is contaminating our drinking water, all in the name of “Energy Reform”.

Over the past decade oil and gas producers have increasingly used hydraulic fracturing also known as fracking to extract oil and gas from the earth. Most people believe fracking is a new process but it has been around for over 100 years. Modern day fracking began in the 1990’s when George P Mitchell created a new technique by combining fracking with horizontal drilling. Since then, U.S. oil and gas production has skyrocketed. But the “new” perception of fracking leads people to incorrectly believe that fracking is temporary and that it somehow harms the environment. The truth is fracking is a reasonable energy solution if oversight and safeguards are used. In the last ten years fracking has improved conditions in the U.S. in three

“Fracking” isn’t a word that most people are familiar with unless they are well informed or active in local government or natural gas extraction. “Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves extracting natural gas from shale formations underground” (Collier, Galatas, Harrelson-Stephens, 2008). During the process known as fracking, millions of gallons of water are shot underground into shale formations to help bring the natural gas trapped inside the formations to be released so that it can surface and become available for extraction. This is the technique that is used for traditional fracking methods. Although fracking increases the states natural gas production, it also carries some negative side effects that are affecting the state and its people.

In recent years, the subject of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking has been a constant subject of interest in the news media. The pros and cons of fracking are passionately debated. However, the public should become educated on the subject of fracking prior to choosing a side of the argument. In the scholarly article, “Super Fracking,” published in 2014, by Donald L. Trucotte, Eldridge M. Moores, and John B. Rundle, a detailed description of fracking is provided, followed by their analysis of current issues surrounding the controversy. According to Trucotte, Moores, and Rundle, fracking saves the consumer money. The wellhead cost to produce natural gas in January of 2000 was two dollars and sixty cents per one thousand cubic feet. At an alarming rate, the cost at the wellhead to produce natural gas had risen to eight dollars per one thousand cubic feet by January of 2006. Comfortingly, the wellhead cost dropped to two dollars and eighty-nine cents by the end of 2012. Impressively, gas production increase and price decrease over the time period are a result of fracking. In their article, Trucotte, Moores, and Rundle describe in great detail that hydraulic fracturing, most commonly referred to as fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth to fracture the layers of rock so that a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the oil or natural gas inside. This method of fracking has been used commercially for the last fifty years.

Each film presented ways to demonstrate how fracking has affected people in their daily routine. Fracking is defined as a way for engineers to pump water into the ground to then release natural gas.After this water is created, it is known as produced water which then has a possibility to pollute surrounding areas. (McAleer, 2013) Although both FrackNation and Gasland show people in their hometowns, FrackNation by Phelim McAleer is able to create an unyielding argument by using logos.

The documentary "Gasland" by Josh Fox is about hydraulic fracturing, a controversial method, because of the dangers that come with it. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a technique of extracting natural gas by fracturing the rock with pressurized liquid. Throughout the duration of the documentary, the film uses logos, pathos, and ethos to help build upon the argument but still lacks in some areas to fully enhance the argument.

Across the world, protest groups are gaining momentum in the fight against Fracking. Many concerns among the local populations include fears for industrialized landscapes, increased power of multinational enterprises, ground and surface water pollution, food production and general human and environmental health (De Rijke 2013). These are becoming important issues to the general public. The increasing awareness about the dangers of fracking are being told from media sources such as the documentary “Gasland.” The film directed by Josh Fox, about was nominated for an Academy Award 2011. The documentary is famous for showing tap water burst into flames due to methane gas contamination.

In his book The Boom, Russell Gold discusses the history of fracking from its origins through its development into modern times. As an accredited Senior Energy Reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Gold has a very unique relationship with the subject; one that makes him privy to the benefits and consequences of fracking from both a personal and employment-based perspective. Gold is able to contextualize the topics he discusses, including more technical aspects of fracking, and move between his vastly different perspectives with such fluidity that it remains relatable, no matter the background of the reader.

he movie ‘Truthland: Dispatches from the Real Gasland’ investigates the environmental issue natural gas drilling could cause on the environment and water by talking to different experts and asking different questions. Shelly Depue, a schoolteacher mentions that according to the Gasland movie by Josh Fox, the natural gas drilling would destroy water quality and the environment (TruthLandMovie’s Channel, 2012) . Hydraulic fracking is the process by which the rock is split so the gas can flow to the surface. According to many of the experts, John Fox uses a lot of insinuation in the movie Gasland to mislead people and misinform people on what natural gas drilling really is (TruthLandMovie’s Channel, 2012). The video does not seem to analysis both critics and supporters. I think if she was able to ask critics of hydraulic fracking same questions as she asked the supporters and analyzed both answers it would have seemed like a fair review. Rather, she compared the responses of environmentalist and experts with that of Josh Fox, which I felt was a bit biased because it was just one man. In the interview on PBS, Josh

Fracking by showing the danger to our water supply. That can be caused if fracking, is close to the community's water supply. The chemicals, the amount of water wasted, and environment are the effects that the people of that community come across, when big

In the article “Denver Post, Poverty and Fracking.” There is thim mom who is talking about how fracking could affect her kids and she worried. The author tries to show how this fracking idea was not best idea. In the article “ That meant an energy savings of more than $110 billion to the U.S. economy, all thanks to fracking shale formations full of natural gas.” This shows how people are really expensive this fracking is , and how it is not worth the money. Another piece of evidence is “ And there's the problem of what to do with all that waste fluid at the end of the day.” This shows how all it does is how the water and the people who are going to

In December 2011, the federal Environmental Protection Agency concluded that fracking operations could be responsible for groundwater pollution.“Today’s methods make gas drilling a filthy business. You know it’s bad when nearby residents can light the water coming out of their tap on fire,” says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. What’s causing the fire is the methane from the drilling operations. A ProPublica investigation in 2009 revealed methane contamination was widespread in drinking water in areas around fracking operations in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. The presence of methane in drinking water in Dimock, Pa., had become the focal point for Josh Fox’s investigative documentary, Gasland, which received an Academy Award nomination in 2011 for Outstanding Documentary; Fox also received an Emmy for non-fiction directing. Fox’s interest in fracking intensified when a natural gas company offered $100,000 for mineral rights on property his family owned in Milanville, in the extreme northeast part of Pennsylvania, about 60 miles east of Dimock.

Despite the known endangerment fracking has on the water we consume, the air we respire, the land we live on, the animals we feed on, and the climate we survive in, the multibillion dollar fracking industry has spent millions convincing the public that fracking poses no real threats to the environment or the communities living nearby their sites. Gregory Zuckerman, author of the pro-fracking book “The Frackers” is a perfect, published example of capitalist persuasion. The author praises the group of entrepreneurs who stumbled upon the success of horizontal drilling, claiming that their capitalist spirit is exactly what has transformed global energy and improved our situation geopolitically. While it’s true that fracking is an innovation that saves the natural gas industry and the public the hassle of paying for imported energy, the set of risks associated with fracking are definite and outweigh the potential economic benefits. Zuckerman’s rhetorical strategy dismisses claims made on the negative human and environmental impacts of fracking. In the six-page “afterword” titled “Environmental Tensions”, the author spends a total of three pages introducing controversies, quickly asserting, “this accusation likely, is overstated” (Zuckerman p. 376), or concern “also seems overblown” (Zuckerman p. 377). Without any clear explanation as to