My Reactions to "Gasland Part II"

It's now been precisely three years since I penned a piece for Foolish investors about "Gasland", a documentary flick about hydraulic fracturing that was produced and directed by a then rookie Pennsylvania filmmaker named Josh Fox.

The film was unleashed just as BP's Macondo well was fouling the Gulf of Mexico with millions of gallons of gushing oil, and so the world was sensitized to the real or imagined ravages of hydrocarbon production. Partially as a result, "Gasland" ultimately packed something of a wallop in intensifying criticism of fracking as a potential fouler of water tables, not to mention the air.

A follow-up fracking film
Last Monday evening, HBO hosted "Gasland Part II", Fox's second cinematic iteration of the anti-fracking theme. To the extent possible, I'll avoid describing my conclusions about the latest film. I've been in and around the conventional energy industry for too long for my take on the movie not to be somewhat biased. My spouse asked, however, as we watched the second part together, "Is this all true?" She then immediately responded to her own query: "It can't be all wrong."

About 24 hours later, after having digested the latest film, she noted that its contents had seemed considerably "heavier" than Fox's prior effort, which copped an award at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. I suspect her conclusion presages those of lots of viewers who will see "Gasland Part II" during the coming months.

As BP's tragedy has reinforced for us, oil and gas operations can lead to spills, environmental damage, and even death. About a year after Fox's first film was released, Chesapeake Energy (NYSE: CHK  ) experienced a spill in Bradford County, Pa. That's in the Marcellus Shale, where both films are centered and where Chesapeake has a major presence.

Far and wide
Fox's latest version ranges somewhat more widely than its predecessor. Oh sure, there's plenty of attention to environmental damage attributable to Cabot Oil & Gas' (NYSE: COG  ) fracking operations in Dimock, Pa., the epicenter of the first film. But the follow-up also spends considerable time in Pavillion, Wyo., where the Environmental Protection Agency has contended that hydraulic fracturing by Encana (NYSE: ECA  ) has sullied the local aquifer. Only lately has the EPA turned over a second investigation into the matter to Wyoming state authorities.

Other stops include the Barnett Shale, near Fort Worth. There, Fox revisits Dish, Texas, a Denton County town whose name derives from the satellite company having promised free service in exchange for the adoption of the appellation. Fox spends time with Dish's mayor, who's had to relocate due to his sons' frequent nosebleeds, which he attributes to fracking.

Also during Fox's revisit to the Barnett, Range Resources (NYSE: RRC  ) suffers a degree of ignominy for having drilled beneath a couple's 8,000-square-foot "dream house". As in a similar display in the first version, the owner is able to demonstrate flames shooting from his lighted garden hose.

The second "Gasland" also touches down briefly in Queensland, Australia, where anti-fracking protests have begun. It then moves to a description of "demonstrations across Europe". Named as specific sites are the U.K., Bulgaria, Romania, France, and Canada. Little did we know that our neighbors to the north had hightailed it across the pond. Poland, where Chevron (NYSE: CVX  ) has undertaken an ambitious shale drilling program is essentially unmentioned.

Foolish takeaway
Over time, the second "Gasland" is likely to have a greater effect than its predecessor in stirring up anti-fracking sentiment. Beyond that it'll easily top "Promised Land", Matt Damon's late 2012 Hollywood movie that almost certainly was intended to have the same effect, but fizzled with nary of whimper of publicity or attendant consternation.

The EPA is involved in a giant study of fracking's effects on the environment to be released in 2014. Should Fox's second film set off a crescendo of ire, which is possible, and should it be followed by a report by the agency that expresses difficulties with fracking's safety, companies attempting to ply their trade in the Marcellus, the Eagle Ford, the Bakken, or the Haynesville might well encounter increased regulatory roadblocks to their efforts. We can only wait and watch.


Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (2)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2013, at 4:49 PM, billmitts wrote:

    Your promised opinion is noticeably absent; your wife's comment that "it can't be all wrong" is an opinion of sorts, except that of course it can. The truth is that there have always been separate incidents but unless the cause is disclosed the conclusion is misleading. For instance fracking has never been the cause of nose bleeds in children in the 60 year history of the practice and to give credence to that unproven claim is a without merit. Some issues would have existed without fracking. It short this was not even a good movie review.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2013, at 4:54 PM, gert7to3 wrote:

    Mr. Smith didn't seem to say very much. Sort of like a book report which simply lists the contents page. I would like to have seen some conclusions, especially since they would have been based upon his experience.

    Fracking as well as conventional petroleum drilling can produce unintended consequences. Any one who views fracking in isolation to previous drilling is deluding themselves. This country is honeycombed with drill sites. Whilst most have not been made to the depths typical of fracked wells, old wells can provide pathways to contaminants escaping into higher rock formations.

    Perhaps the biggest threat from fracking is that industry wants to excuse itself from responsibility. They don't want disclosure of the chemicals they are using; they don't want local environmental studies made prior to their fracking activities; they don't want to be held responsible for damages; they don't want to he held responsible for containing and disposing of the waste products they will create.

    This is by no means confined to the petroleum industry. All extractive industries are like this. You may excuse it as a form of cost containment. Unfortunately industrial activities are not conducted in a vacuum.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2013, at 5:53 PM, AnneBonney wrote:

    "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth"--David Baldacci.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2013, at 10:55 PM, gert7to3 wrote:

    AnneBonney, which lies are you referring too?

    Are you calling critics of fracking liars? Or are you skeptical of the petroleum industry which sort of says "trust us"?

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2013, at 12:00 PM, akuofia wrote:

    I found this to be a better analysis of the movie -

    http://energyindepth.org/national/debunking-gasland-part-ii/

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2539460, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/25/2014 8:50:30 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement