Muzzling Criticism of Gasland

by Little Miss Attila on June 9, 2011


Josh Fox can’t take the heat.

Most of you are aware of Josh Fox’s documentary, Gasland, which is critical of fracking (a technique used increasingly in the extraction of natural gas, nationwide–particularly in Colorado, and on the East Coast). The movie suggests that fracking is reponsible for various environmental hazards–including flammable gases in drinking water.

What’s odd is that the fimmaker is going to extraordinary lengths to suppress criticism of his movie. Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have a short filmed response to Gasland that points out what people in Colorado have known for decades–sometimes the tap water in that area is mixed with methane gas, which comes up from the ground.

Fox asserts in McAleer’s/McElhinney’s critical video that the methane that is so dramatically lit on fire in Gasland is different in origin from the gas that permeates the groundwater in Colorado, but here’s the problem: if that were so, Josh Fox could simply put a statement out to that effect, or create a response to the McAleer/McElhinney criticism. It would be great publicity for the Gasland team, to respond thoughtfully to the concerns of pro-energy filmmakers.

Instead, what Fox and his attorneys are doing is suppressing the critical film clip. The fact that Fox’s attorneys have used bogus copyright claims to muzzle the Gasland response suggests that Fox is unwilling to debate in the realm of ideas, and has resorted, instead, to bullying tactics. Not a good sign.

{ 6 trackbacks }

Sure people could light their water on fire before fracking, but that’s not relevant [Darleen Click]
June 9, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Frack Nation Kicks A$$ on Kickstart
February 18, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Frack Nation Kicks A$$ on Kickstarter
February 20, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Frack Nation Nears Funding Goal
February 27, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Fracking Nation Nears Funding Goal
February 27, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Frack Nation Exceeds Its Funding Goal, with Time to Spare
March 2, 2012 at 2:06 pm

{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }

ponce June 9, 2011 at 7:54 pm

Yeah!

Nothing bad could possibly happen when the energy companies blow up huge sections of the earth’s crust.

It’s as environmentally friendly as when they blow up mountain tops and dump them on the lucky rubes living in the valley below.

Reply

Darrell June 9, 2011 at 8:58 pm

Huge? Relative to what, the Earth?
You constantly amaze me with your sixth-grade understanding of science.
You clowns are just pissed that it is working and it held down natural gas prices in the last five years when you were looking for a huge increase and a crisis. A crisis to push your alternative energy poison pill–$30K -$120K per household–with a potential for similar
spending within a decade as crap breaks down. We had an “expert” come here and tell us it wouldn’t last beyond a single year when I said
that it would be similar to a normal production decline curve. I was right. The Obama “expert” was wrong. Go figure.

I do say “don’t put any money into the Left”–it won’t last beyond a single year. What’s the point? It’s the end of the Left Era. No more big Left.

Reply

ontherocks June 9, 2011 at 9:52 pm

“…when the energy companies blow up huge sections of the earth’s crust…” What are you talking about?

I don’t agree with the practice of mountain top removal, but that doesn’t have anything to do with hydraulic fracking. In the practice of fracking tight shales (most often), sandstones or other hard sedimentary rocks – nothing is blown up.

It takes place thousands of feet underground, by way of directed hydraulic pressure that opens new fractures (and existing fractures) and forces sand grains (or other proppants) into the fractures to keep them open. It is a way to get natural gas or oil from previously impermeable rocks.

Reply

ponce June 10, 2011 at 10:31 am

Haha,

I think what you’ve described is known as a difference without a distinction.

If you “fracked” the foundation of a tall building, it would collapse, would it not?

Reply

Darrell June 10, 2011 at 2:53 pm

Quick call Rosie O’Donnell and Charlie Sheen, ponce!
You’ve given them something to bloviate about again.
Let’s see Bush prove that he didn’t frack the WTC.

The answer to your question is probably not, but it’s just a strawman anyway.
It’s hard to fracture a hundred feet of shale. A drop of spit in the ocean doesn’t provide an analogy that
describes what we are talking about accurately.

Reply

Darleen Click June 9, 2011 at 7:56 pm

ponce proves again that he is a good member in standing of the hysterical, lying, Luddite Left.

Reply

ponce June 9, 2011 at 8:08 pm

Lurleen,

I figured you, the queen of fringe right hypocrisy would show up on a post about two wingnuts whining about an artist exercising his Constitutional rights to protect his work.

Do you guys believe anything you spew?

Anything at all?

Reply

Darleen Click June 9, 2011 at 8:26 pm

ponce, google “fair use” and have someone read it to you.

Reply

Darleen Click June 9, 2011 at 8:27 pm

BTW, Joy?

The embed code is missing it’s beginning tag. Put this right before the src

<iframe

Reply

I R A Darth Aggie June 10, 2011 at 10:19 am

Sounds like lawyers.

When the facts are against you, pound on the law.
When the law is against you, pound on the facts.
When the law and the facts are against you, pound on the table.

Reply

Neal Keith February 18, 2012 at 4:48 pm

The composition of the gas will tell it’s origin.

Reply

Previous post:

Next post: