"Gasland" and "Fracknation" are two documentary films based off hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing as indicated by dictionary.com is the forcing open of fissures in subterranean rocks by introducing liquid at high pressure, especially to extract oil or gas. Hydraulic fracturing started as a trial in 1947. It is a technique where a high weight of liquid (more often than not chemicals suspended in water) is infused into a wellbore to make splits in the profound rock arrangements through which regular gas, petroleum, and salt water will flow all more freely. Other than the United States, hydraulic fracking happens in New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Fracking has been proven gainful and additionally unbeneficial to numerous…
When watching the documentary "Gasland" by Josh Fox , I have had no prior knowledge of what Fracking truly was. I have to say though as this documentary was in full swing I couldn't keep my eyes off the screen. As I couldn’t believe after watching this film what fracking was. I thought fracking was insanely harmful to not only animals , humans and the property they both live on as well. It did two very different things when it came to animals and humans. When it comes to the animals they were the ones that had no choose but to drink it so they were not only dying because of it but they also had hair lose, and are unable to eat be as well. This is terrible for the farmers cause they now cannot breed this cow or this pig , they now cannot…
This film was very interesting and helpful because in my earth science class I am giving a group presentation of Hydro-fracking, and although I discovered in my research how harmful it can be, seeing personal accounts of it gave me a better feel on the subject. I think we need to come up with a better way to get natural gas out rock because injecting chemical fluid into the ground is too risky pertaining to our water supply. After all, we need water to survive. I agree that it is a problem that we are depending on what one legislature calls "foreign oil and terrorism," but I would rather keep depending on these resources then polluting our water supply and turning American land into nasty dumps. From this film and the group project I participated in for class, I have learned that our water can be easily contaminated. Fracking needs to be a careful process that should be done nowhere near major water sources are located.…
There is a great deal of water used in the process of fracking. In the process of fracking a mixture of water, clay, and chemicals is pumped down the well and water makes up an overwhelming high percentage of the fracking fluid (Is Fracking a Good Idea?). Some wells can take up to 1,000 water trucks which is 5 million gallons of water (One Fracking Minute). All of the water used during fracking could be drinking water. Some wells can take up to 11.5 million liters of water just for that well (What the Frack?). This means it would take 25 million gallons of water for just 5 wells. There are about 7,788 wells just in Pennsylvania which means 38,940 million gallons of water was used, imagine how much more water was used…
Josh Fox is the main character in the documentary, Gasland, and he can sell his land for $100,000 to the government for them to put in natural gas areas and drill wells for it. Other home owners with much land would do this to get money but then once the natural gas was set all over their land, there was a problem. After the wells were drilled, water started going “bad” and people became ill because of the contaminated water. For example, one family’s water was so polluted that their water was able to catch on fire. Another example of bad water was that the animals on a farm would drink this water and start losing their hair.…
The environmentalist/anti fracking point of view shown in the documentary “Gasland” is a very informative, and important documentary that people everywhere should watch. The narrator, Josh Fox offers several valid and intelligent points about the possible dangers of fracking, and the many chemicals used in it. However, Fox is a very biased narrator, and at several points offers invalid evidence. For example, Fox attempts to instill fear in the viewer, in his controversial scene, detailing the many chemicals used in fracking fluid. While these chemicals are carcinogens, in the movie “Frack Nation,” it is explained by a UC Berkeley professor, that these chemicals are not harmful to humans. The professor states that millions of the chemicals in our daily lives are classified as carcinogens, but don’t give humans cancer in the doses we are exposed to. Some of his comparisons to chemicals giving cancer are almost as rash as saying one cigarette will give you terminal lung cancer. This is evident as even experts such as Alan J. Krupnick of Resources For the Future describe his documentary as an “Unabashed and one-sided bashing of the oil and gas industry... The relatively esoteric issue of fugitive methane gives way to some really outrageous statements." It seems as though Fox’s main goal was not to express the truth about the oil and gas industry, but his wild claims were more directed toward creating drama. John Hangar of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection was quoted as saying that “This movie certainly contributes to more public misunderstanding.” Another key citation is the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission stating “Gasland incorrectly attributes several cases of water well contamination in Colorado to oil and gas development when our investigations determined that the wells in question contained biogenic methane that is not attributable to such development.” Fox is clearly not a reliable source. Also Fox’s main examples in the movie…
I knew that fracking was a contentious issue to say the least, and I have always held some degree of disdain towards big oil companies so I cannot say I was unbiased at the outset. My initial perception while watching Gasland was that this industry might actually help the communities mentioned in the film, however, I changed my tack very quickly when I began to think about how fracking makes inequality even worse, a sad truth, but an evident one. In that way, my perception of communities affected by fracking was unjustified and wrong. Though my perception of fracking communities was wrong, my perception of oil companies was galvanized further. It is obvious that these massive corporations are only out for profit, which is an obvious truth, but one that is hugely important. They do not care about who they are driving out of their homes, what they are doing to vulnerable communities or what happens when they leave. The bottom line is the only thing that matters and if worsening inequality is the price, then they have no problem paying it. My perception of people paid off by these companies is harmful because my initial thought was that this was a good thing for less fortunate people, when it clearly is not. The mistake in my perception of big oil companies is that the damage caused cannot be reversed, and that they are unstoppable, when the power to stop them is very much in the hands of the average person. The environmental effects are no doubt horrible, but I feel as though the social effects must be discussed more in order to make the changes necessary to put an end to…
Fracking is increasing in the U.S., but with this increase of natural gas comes an increase of safety concerns. The process of hydraulic fracking requires chemicals that can affect the families that live nearby. These chemicals also affect the environment on the land and in the air. With fracking there comes its positives and its negatives, some good and some bad. There are very few regulations on how fracking can be done, but in the regulations there isn't much help. Fracking for natural gas needs to be further regulated before it can continue.…
The instances of water contamination are not unique to New York and Northern Pennsylvania. For the first time, Pennsylvania has made public 243 cases of contamination of private drinking wells from oil and gas drilling operations. The cases occurred in 22 counties, with Susquehanna, Tioga, Bradford, and Lycoming counties having the most incidences of contamination. In a few cases, one drilling operation contaminated the water of multiple wells, with water issues resulting from methane gas contamination, wells that went dry or undrinkable,…
The article “Fuel Fight” (Adams, 2012) stated that fracking is a new technology that can get access to the new energy resource. It has many advantages for the U.S. but some organizations disagree with fracking project. The author mentioned that a lot of energy, which is being used in the U.S., is imported from many countries all over the world. For example, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela and Iraq are the primary oil exporters to the U.S. and more than half amount of oil that the U.S. uses is imported from those countries. Adam also mentioned that the U.S. energy companies are trying to…
Fracking for a source of energy is occurring all over the United States. Several masses of shale rock are all over the county, such as the Mancos shale in Utah and Colorado; the New Albany shale in Illinois and Kentucky; and the largest shale in the country, the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus Shale stretches over Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia. Large portions of the Marcellus Shale are in New York and Pennsylvania, and the shale rock in these areas have started to be fractured to allow natural gas to flow into freshly drilled wells. These sites have had an extremely negative effect on the biosphere in these surrounding…
Fracking is beneficial to society because it provides thousands of jobs across the country. “Obama acknowledges the job-generating power of natural gas drilling, saying it can generate 600,000 jobs…”(5.1). Also “federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled, and thousands of americans have jobs because of it”(5.1). Fracking doesn’t just provide jobsits cleaner for the environment. “The development of natural gas will create jobs also power truck and factories are cleaner and cheaper…”(5.1). People are taking their families and going to where the gas industries are moving, leaving their old jobs. “From all across the country, people are moving… to find work and get a new start on life”(5.4). Although fracking provides jobs for…
Citizens of Kansas and Missouri need safe and plentiful water for public use and for farm and ranch performance. On average, a single fracturing takes 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job. The water brought to the ejecting site in is mixed with Approximately 40,000 gallons and up to 600 different toxic chemicals including known carcinogens, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hydrochloric acid, carbon sulfide, petroleum distillates, mercury, and other toxic metals, are used within each fracking. This adds up to 72 trillion gallons of water and 360 billion gallons of chemicals. There have been over 1,000 documented complaints of water contamination neighboring areas of gas drilling, as well as occurrences of respiratory, and neurological damage as a result of consumed water. The mixture reaches the end of the well where the high pressure causes the nearby shale rock to crack, creating fissures where natural gas flows into the well. During this hydraulic fracturing process, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out from the system and and contaminate nearby groundwater. The drinking water in Kansas and Missouri is now contaminated preventing the citizens from drinking the local water. One other major problem that has caused nearby irritation is the earthquakes that are caused.…
As the mayor of the town, I find fracking to be a beneficial factor to us. Even though fracking isn’t a completely safe way to obtain natural gas, I believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Because our town is small, it is important to come up with ways to make our community expand and develop. By fracking, we’ll be able to create more jobs and increase the employment rates. Research had shown that in Watford City in Western North Dakota the employment rates had increased and also grew exponentially. In Watford City, Mayor Brent Stanford has stated that he is for fracking. According to National geographic, Power Fuels, a Watford City company that focuses on transporting oil and other fluids had increased from having only 50 staffs to having 1,200 staffs in four different towns. Not only that, roads were being repaired and improved, new businesses are opened, elementary schools expanded and hospitals being built. In 2007, in North Dakota 15,500 workers were employed by private companies. In 2012, over 21,000 workers were employed and it’s expected to rise. I believe a small town like ours will grow and expand where unemployment rates will decrease and home values will increase. Local tax returns will help schools and other social programs upgrade. Fracking also helps economically to save up money. According to Texstar Oil, Pennsylvania went from $176 million to over $426 million in the past 5 years from 2006-2011. North Dakota received over $1 billion in oil tax returns with a budget of $4.1 billion in 2011-2012. By us allowing fracking, we’ll be able to save up a lot of money from drilling up our natural gases instead of buying foreign oil. President Barack Obama is also for fracking. According to Forbes, President Obama had said that nearly everyone’s energy bill had lowered because of it and the amount of renewable energy generated from sources like wind and solar had increased. Most importantly United States’ import of…
Air quality is a major concern, but the biggest problem to fracking is water contamination. The cement casing on the shale wells has failed and released methane to contaminate drinking water. Some chemicals leak into the groundwater, which is the main source of drinking water, are too toxic to use any more. For example, in Dimock , Pennsylvania, fouled drinking water near fracking operations is higher polluted than other areas without fracking. Statisticians report that areas within a kilometre of a shale gas well are 15 to 20 times more excessive methane in their water. This high level of concentration is enough to blow up a house(Kaldor,2013). Neither industries nor scientists can name a solution to the water pollution problem so far, the local communities have to rely on bottle waters for daily actives, because they are afraid to turn on the faucets one more time.…