A few weeks ago, I attended the "Big Screen Energy: Fracking Film Festival" in Washington, D.C., where trailers for three energy documentary films were featured. Those trailers appear below, and here's a fact-filled energy brochure that was available at the event. Get some popcorn and enjoy the shows!
1. Truthland. What are the facts behind oil and natural gas development in
America today? One woman from rural Pennsylvania decided to find out — for
her family, for her community, for herself. Hear what some of the experts she
interviewed along her journey had to say.
2. Frack Nation is a feature documentary that will tell the truth about fracking for natural gas.
Part I:
Part II:
Part III:
I only watched "Truthland",,, ands whaddayaknow, it was funded by natural gas companies.
ReplyDeleteI guess no one has ever heard of "truth" produced via selective interviewees, selective edits or vested interests.
*yawn*
"I guess no one has ever heard of "truth" produced via selective interviewees, selective edits or vested interests"...
ReplyDeleteSort of like Gas Land right bart?
GasLand wasn't funded by gas or oil companies.
ReplyDeleteDid you miss that in the "Truthland" video? Did you miss how Josh was cut off in his answer?
I remain of the opinion that all the data isn't in, and think that anyone who believes that fracking etc. are virtually 100% harmless are wrong.
"GasLand wasn't funded by gas or oil companies"...
ReplyDeleteSo what bart?
Should I believe yet another questionable government funded stuy?
Apparently you purposefully missed who Gas Land was funded by but that doesn't seem to be a problem for you at least...
"I remain of the opinion that all the data isn't in, and think that anyone who believes that fracking etc. are virtually 100% harmless are wrong"...
Well bart several many people have your cry for more information...
GasLand wasn't funded by gas or oil companies.
ReplyDeleteDid you miss that in the "Truthland" video? Did you miss how Josh was cut off in his answer?
I remain of the opinion that all the data isn't in, and think that anyone who believes that fracking etc. are virtually 100% harmless are wrong.
I stand by it all, and know who funded Gasland too.
Interesting that you apparently don't care about who funded "Truthland" or how Josh was cut off.
Just like anything, you gotta understand these guys are trying to sell a point of view. Bart is right to be skeptical. We all should be, even more so if we agree with them.
ReplyDeleteTake everything with a grain of salt.
"Did you miss that in the "Truthland" video? Did you miss how Josh was cut off in his answer?" -- bart
ReplyDeleteThe sequence that you are referring to was an excerpt from "FrackNation" which was funded through "Kickstarter". "Gasland" has been debunked. And study after study confirms that fracking is safe. Even the Environmental Defense Fund agrees that fracking is safe.
"Notoriously, activists like Josh Fox, producer of the disinformation docudrama Gasland, claim that the process of blasting open cracks in deep shale deposits to release trapped natural gas, a.k.a. fracking, has contaminated water wells. Not so, concluded a report released last month at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences." -- Reason
What a shock that "bart' would be taken in by Josh Fox.
Is there a conspiracy theory that you and "Vag" do not buy into? Perhaps, "bart" and "Vag" could team up and produce and anti-fracking, anti-common sense documentary - "Gasbag"
"Interesting that you apparently don't care about who funded "Truthland" or how Josh was cut off"...
ReplyDeleteNo sir bart I do care and I do trust the energy companies infintely more than the federal government or any of the hypocritical leftist tree hugging root kisser groups that were in part supporting Josh...
Personaly I don't think Josh was cut off soon enough but 'fools and their money' and all that....
"Is there a conspiracy theory that you and "Vag" do not buy into? Perhaps, "bart" and "Vag" could team up and produce and anti-fracking, anti-common sense documentary - "Gasbag""...
ReplyDeleteROFLMAO!
Oh man che!
That's going to leave a welt or two!
Damn! That was funny!!
Given the abundance of fossil fuels in the USA, why is the federal government mandating the use of ethanol, and subsidizing corn production?
ReplyDelete802,000 barrels (yes, barrels, not gallons) a day are mandated for use and subsidized by federal ditat. It is galloping socialism and central planning.
This program, ramped under President Bush jr ("I am an ethanol man" )dwarfs all the renewable energy programs of Obama put together. Obama, in this case (as in most others) appears no more than an extension of Bush jr, though the program retains staunch support in the GOP.
Who can explain this complete lack of principles on the part of either party? Why does the GOP mock Obama's mouse renewable program efforts while supporting the elephant ethanol?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat a shock that "bart' would be taken in by Josh Fox.
ReplyDeleteAn outright lie, scumbag.
Is there a conspiracy theory that you and "Vag" do not buy into? Perhaps, "bart" and "Vag" could team up and produce and anti-fracking, anti-common sense documentary - "Gasbag"
ROFL!!!!!!!!
You continue to convict yourself and show who you *really* are so well, by having nothing but personal attacks and also *have to* lie.
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder ( [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_personality_disorder]link[/url] ) RULES! LOL!!!!
I TOTALLY LOVE how you and the other ostrich types (dot com believer types, it seems) have never and will never even look for the 10Ks and cash flow data etc. that show the real truth.
"You continue to convict yourself and show who you *really* are so well, by having nothing but personal attacks and also *have to* lie"...
ReplyDeleteAhhh, facts have now morphed into attacks, eh?
Truly amazing bart...
I only watched "Truthland",,, ands whaddayaknow, it was funded by natural gas companies.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it the gas companies have every right to defend themselves against the lies told in Gasland. What matters is what the facts are, not who paid for them to be brought to your attention.
What you should be upset about is the fact that the gas companies have paid the environmental groups to go after coal so that they can make more money by reducing competition in the power generation sector.
The way I see it the gas companies have every right to defend themselves against the lies told in Gasland.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, but I see the primary problem being the lies and spin etc. on both sides. Neither are vaguely close to blameless and I remain skeptical of both - sort of like I was 8 years ago on peak (cheap) oil.
I need to locate some friends from way back who moved to ND about 15 or 20 years ago, and who are likely to have a balanced overall opinion.
Fair enough, but I see the primary problem being the lies and spin etc. on both sides. Neither are vaguely close to blameless and I remain skeptical of both - sort of like I was 8 years ago on peak (cheap) oil.
ReplyDeleteI think that you fail to appreciate the difficulty that the drillers are in simply because of the language that we use. Many people, regulators included, tend to ask that all activities that are undertaken are risk free. But that can never be the case. And when you have something like fracking where the green industry is on attack, the companies are placed in a terrible position. While the drillers can show that their operations are safe if their employees and contractors follow normal industry standards it is not possible that every employee and every contractor will always follow procedures. People get tired and can make errors. While almost all errors that are made will not do material harm to the environment there is always some possible condition where a terrible event could take place. Because the general public has no idea of the scope of the problem and is driven by fear that comes from deceitful works like Gasland the industry finds it prudent to finance its own films that can defend fraking by sticking to the facts where Gasland did not.
I'm not referring to honest mistakes where procedures aren't followed, In that area, I'm much more concerned about negative cash flow effects or just plain greed cause those procedures to be altered. The parallels would be Macondo or maintenance procedures on the Alaska BP pipeline.
ReplyDeletePart of my concern and skepticism is also hubris, where many could incorrectly assume for whatever reasons, that all is known about what happens underground over a period of many years. And yes, I know that fracking has apparently been going on for years with little problems. But there have been huge changes in the last few years in the technologies used.
One analogy for my concerns would be Thalidomide, another would be vested interest cover ups or spin.
Gasland wise, I do recall seeing at least one instance of burning water where it was fine prior to a nearby well or three. There's other concerns too, but I see little reason to bring them up at this time.
Bart:
ReplyDelete"Gasland wise, I do recall seeing at least one instance of burning water where it was fine prior to a nearby well or three. There's other concerns too, but I see little reason to bring them up at this time."
What would you change as a result of this case of gas entering groundwater?
Nothing, it's just two cases.
ReplyDeleteI want more research and real facts, with as little vested interest involvement as possible.
"Gasland wise, I do recall seeing at least one instance of burning water where it was fine prior to a nearby well or three"...
ReplyDeleteLMAO!
Good one!
Thanks bart...
"Gasland wise, I do recall seeing at least one instance of burning water where it was fine prior to a nearby well or three"...
ReplyDeleteLMAO!
Good one!
Thanks bart...
You're welcome. You may actually finally be starting to get it.
"You're welcome. You may actually finally be starting to get it"...
ReplyDeleteWell bart apparently the facts and you don't get along...
My condolences to you...
juandos is still so frantic and upset about always being wrong that he only has more personal attacks and similar.
ReplyDeleteIt'd be a little funny if it weren't so sad...
Much scarier, or very strange at the least, about his avatar being what appears to be a high powered military sniper rifle - probably a .50 Barrett.
I'm not referring to honest mistakes where procedures aren't followed, In that area, I'm much more concerned about negative cash flow effects or just plain greed cause those procedures to be altered. The parallels would be Macondo or maintenance procedures on the Alaska BP pipeline.
ReplyDeleteYou are mixing things up. The issue is the safety of fracking. We know that on that front there is no problem with fracking and no reason for a ban or moratorium.
As far as the improper maintenance, not following standards, or outright fraud, we already have adequate regulations to handle such events. And the cash flow issue is a problem for investors, not the regulators who write rules that allow the shale scam to go on in the first place. I have no objection to farmers getting rich because they leased their land to oil companies that need to keep borrowing just to stay afloat. As long as there is money thrown around there is no reason to punish farmers or ordinary individuals who would benefit from the jobs while they last.
Part of my concern and skepticism is also hubris, where many could incorrectly assume for whatever reasons, that all is known about what happens underground over a period of many years. And yes, I know that fracking has apparently been going on for years with little problems. But there have been huge changes in the last few years in the technologies used.
The technology is old and the drilling takes place well below the water table. As long as the casings are used as required by industry standards there is no problem with fracking itself. As for the water used in the process there are regulations that govern its storage and treatment before disposal.
One analogy for my concerns would be Thalidomide, another would be vested interest cover ups or spin.
As I said, this technology has been used for a long time and has plenty of data showing it is safe. You cannot argue for its ban without making the same argument for conventional drilling.
Gasland wise, I do recall seeing at least one instance of burning water where it was fine prior to a nearby well or three. There's other concerns too, but I see little reason to bring them up at this time.
The Gasland claims were examples of outright lies that could not be supported by facts. It is time you dropped its narrative and looked at the facts.
I'm unsubscribing, there's no sense in debating the area given the unreasoning faith - and especially given juandos and his "special" avatar, and that my last post was deleted without a trace.
ReplyDelete"uandos is still so frantic and upset about always being wrong that he only has more personal attacks and similar"...
ReplyDeleteComing from you bart this comment is truly hilarious consider where you source your facts...