Talk:Gasland

Weld County Case
The Weld County section is misleading. Even if we take the document cited at face value, the well was damaged as a result of drilling activity. But the document cited provides little or no actual evidence and is hosted at the American Natural Gas Association's website. This hardly seems appropriate, as it's seems unlikely that ANGA would be disinterested in a discussion of the potential impacts of fracking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.122.131 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Fox Response to EID
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to mention that Fox put up a response to the Energy In Depth article? -- http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_July_2010.pdf 169.229.104.158 (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to open a discussion on the Gasland article and if it is written as an advertisement. Healthy Planet (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The format is more that of a press release than of an encyclopedia article. I invite you to examine the articles about some other films to see what I mean. The lede sentence, for example, does not say (as it should) that GASLAND is a documentary film. That may seem boring, but it's standard encylopedic format. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Orange Mike, you are very helpful! If you have time, please let me know what you think of today's changes. Healthy Planet (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to change GASLAND to Gasland. You need to remove all external links from the body of the article. You need to wikify globally. The change from "Fox" to "the filmmaker" is unnecessary and sounds pretentious. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again, the changes have been made and I am hoping it is now wikified. Healthy Planet (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed several things that needed to be italicized. Also: the reviewers were highly inconsistent in the capitalization of the film's title. Quotes should be accurate; so if a given reviewer put it in ALL CAPS or CamelCase (or failed to italicize it), then the quote should do the same; and if they were inconsistent between headline and body copy, both should be true to the initial publication. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike, I addressed each. Healthy Planet (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would any Wikipedia user want all the citations removed?!? What is so pretentious about calling a filmmaker a "filmmaker" anyway? Fox is not some guy with a cell phone camera posting to YouTube. He had already made a documentary before this one, so I do think that it fits as an objective description. Perhaps calling him a "documentary filmmaker" would be more accurate...objectively, you know. --Cynthpoet (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis
I feel the oil and gas industry is replacing water supply with bottled water factoid needs citation. Nbulling
 * I've added a "cite needed" tag. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was shown in the film that in some instances companies were either supplying affected residents with water purification sets or with water tanks and refilling service. I'll rephrase it. JJohannes (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-NPOV in the reception section
"Energy In Depth, a Washington, D.C. based oil and gas industry group,[5] has created a web page with a list of factual inaccuracies in the documentary.[6]"

This wording presents the views of a partisan group as objective. It is therefore non-neutral. I will change the sentence to:

"Energy In Depth, a Washington, D.C. based oil and gas industry group,[5] has created a web page with a list claimed factual inaccuracies in the documentary.[6]"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.214.157 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but most of the claimed factual inaccuracies have excellent citations. Is a citeable criticism section worthwhile, or would that be unencyclopedic? Deckerla (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a sentence about Fox's rebuttal to the EID's claims, though someone please check to see if they feel the phrase "complete point-by-point rebuttal" sounds too biased in favor of Fox. I believe a criticism section would be worthwhile, as long as it includes Mr. Fox's rebuttal's to EID's criticism. I think this would need the work an expert or someone with considerable experience who can distill some of the complex points each side is making in order to be clear and worthy of a section. Otherwise users would do just as well to simply read the EID and Fox's responses. Imnotfat1 (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)imnotfat1


 * You're not going to find an expert that everyone would be happy with. Fox spent a lot of time talking with people about what they thought the problems were with gas drilling (despite a largely limited understanding of CSG engineering or medicine in those he interviewed) and little on possible alternative explanations e.g. the symptoms of those he interviewed were very non-specific and could apply to health problems with a variety of causes, including psychosomatic ones.


 * More time could have been given to neutral (non activist, non shale gas industry) engineers and geologists (and doctors) in the documentary to provide alternative explanations for the problems with drinking water (such as natural seepage of gas into aquifers through faults or cracks). It's very easy for Fox to insinuate that there is a link between the problems people report and gas drilling, but he should have made the effort to demonstrate a reasonable and scientifically rigorous association between the two. An expert in either the medical or CSG/shale gas fields would have plenty to criticise - there's a fair few individuals around the web that I've seen that claim he distorted the truth whilst making the documentary - much like Michael Moore is wont to do. Dallas (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is a filmmakers responsibility to find the "rigorous association". The EPA or the state agency is the more proper group to be doing that. Fox is documenting the voluntary testimony of affected people, and their claims that the contamination happened "soon after" the drilling to otherwise good water seems like good enough prima facie evidence to start to consider whether a systemic problem exists, and what that problem is. The seep in Divide Creek, west of Vail, was reported 4 years after a nearby well failure, but the claim is that the fix to the well did not resolve the problem completely. (another film, "Split estate", talks to another neighbor along the creek who said the problem remained after the "fix".) Added to that is the problem of the black stuff on the dead birds, which is clearly not methane, biogenic or thermogenic, but what it IS, is not addressed. ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC))

Memorial Day
i think there should be a page for his other documentary i would like to read about that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.226.222 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of two coatracking sections
I have just removed two sections that discussed aspects of the fracking controversy without stating their relevance to the film. The article cannot be used as a coatrack. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fox accused of withholding facts that do not suit his story
According to Phelim McAleer, "Josh Fox, the director of Gasland, an Oscar nominated documentary, … admitted that he withheld evidence that showed gas can occur in water naturally and is not a result of fracking." The YouTube video of the two men's Q&A can be viewed under the title Gasland director hides full facts. If Phelim McAleer is to be believed, "Fox initially denied the existence of the 1976 report, but eventually admitted that there have been reports of 'flammable water' in the US since at least 1936." So, my question is this: Where would be a good place in the Wikipedia article to add this fact? Asteriks (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * most definitely, this is a major omission and the site says nothing about it.Churchillreader (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And now the director got youtube to take the video down - unbelievable. So much for "free speech." 71.220.235.161 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

After Josh Fox got his lawyers to force YouTube to pull down the video of a Q&A session he found offensive, Phelim McAleer (who denies that 26 seconds worth of excerpts in a 3:10-minute video are a breach of copyright but belongs in the area of fair use) put the video up on Vimeo where it is expected to remain, muses McAleer, "until Fox and his lawyers try to force Vimeo to pull it down." Asteriks (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The video is now at www.fightgaslandcensorship.com --84.187.117.197 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether, in some cases, fracking has caused the concentration of methane in water to increase to a level than can be lit. Fox shows prima facie evidence that this is happening. Phelim McAleer does not (seem to) say that fracking can not lead to water contamination, so whatever he IS saying is beside the point. His suggestions and accusations, and above all his editing, make him seem not open to reason. ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)) The fact that his previous film was debunking Inconvenient Truth does not help. ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC))

Regarding the Forbes magazine article by Dr. Michael Economides, which is highlighted under the Negative Reception section, the assertion (if accurately reported) appears to be somewhat misleading and dismissive. A segment in Gasland 2 addresses the issue of how and why natural gas from great depths below the surface of the earth gets into shallow aquifers and ground water. An oil and gas industry geologist  explained that defective concrete well liners (w/ cracks and voids) sometimes allow natural gas to migrate upward from lower geological strata to more shallow depths and into ground water supplies. Furthermore, the geologist explained statistics indicate that about 5% of all well liners are initially defective and up to 30% of all wells will have significant liner failures during their useful lives. Thus, natural gas may in fact migrate unintentionally from sources deep in the earth into near-surface, ground water supplies via hydraulic fracturing.Spartacus71bc (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, leaks can happen; so field monitoring of soil for leaks is essential, and should be a legal condition of getting a permit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.196.121.15 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Include Still Image(s) from the Video?
The most memorable parts of the video were those in which average homeowners were igniting the water as it came out of the kitchen tap. These images have tremendous impact, sum-up the point of the entire video and for this reason at least one of them should be included in this article.Jonny Quick (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Says "impacted by natural gas drilling and, specifically, a stimulation method known as hydraulic fracturing." Two things:
 * The fracking that is involved is slickwater fracking of shale. It allows the original production. Stimulation is more appropriately applied to vertical wells into a reservoir, like sandstone, to boost production after production has fallen. The technologies are similar, but slickwater fracking uses much more water and higher pressure, plus a new set of additives.
 * fox deals with some other issues: venting of gasses other than methane by condensate tanks, something that (I believe) happens, or could happen, for any wet gas, and venting of methane at compressor stages on pipelines, at DISH, Texas. His criticisms are not only of the fracking technology, but also on the actions of governmental agencies, and of the management of the gas companies, although in the context of fracking.( Martin | talk • contribs 02:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC))

IMDb (surprisingly perhaps) is not a reliable source WP:RS
IMDB is specifically mentioned in WP:RS as a site not to be linked to (search for "Internet Movie Database", not "IMDB). Possibly hard to understand, but there it is. The other links may be no better - why a link to PBS, or to the site selling the video, or that that site's home page (removed). One notes that a link to amazon.com would not be looked on favorable, yet the DVDs listing on amazon is surely a proof of something - that the movie really exists for example. ( Martin |  talk • contribs 02:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC))

advertisement
I modified the text a bit and removed the advert claim. We do realize that this article is about the movie and not about the topic of fracing, except secondarily. The movie synopsis seems ok enough to me. The paragraph on the controversy about the movie is, I think, appropriate, since the movie is a documentary, even though the paragraph only covers Colorado (which doesn't look like slickwater fracing - closely spaced wells for one, and year of drilling for another. Wasn't the Barnett the first large slickwater frac?). I restructured the controversy paragraph. The final paragraph, on critical reception, gives the movie high praise for editing (and the many memorable one-liners and the laconic yet serious manner), and is correct as measured by the impact that the movie has had. Compare this film with "Split Estate", which uses the same material, and which had much less impact.

As to the topic of links mentioned in the "advert" banner, I will thin them out to just the main film homepage. ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

McClure and Evergreen analytics
In the movie, at 0:28:00, at Renee McClure's table, Josh reads the Evergreen Analytics report and says that the analysis found tricholobenzine in water. I see sheet he is reading from. I see CAS 100-41-4, which is for ethyl benzene. The Colorado people say (here: pdf) that there is no ethyl benzene in the water; but what about the tricholorbenzene? ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)) The MSDS for tricholorobenzene is here. CAS number is 120-82-1 ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

The last line of the report (at 0:28:00) says tricholorbenze is at 65 where the QC limit is 60-140. This shows that tricholorbenzene IS present, although not greater than the larger number in the "QC Limit". (But it is unlear what "QC Limit" means. If the reading had been 58, would that be "too low". Or does that mean that 60-140 is borderline?) The acronym "TWA" in the MSDS is short for Time Weighted Average; I don't know how that applies. MSDS section 11 toxological is quite ominous, as you might expect for a chlorinated benzine. [http://dhss.delaware.gov/dph/files/tcb124faq.pdf Delaware sets a Maximum Contaminant Level of .07 milligrams/liter for tricholorobenzine in drinking water. (Is that 70 micrograms?)]. I take this to mean that at lower levels, it is still a contaminant. ( Martin | talk • contribs 21:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

Critical Response
Currently in the critical response section there are several reviews from non-film critics. Is there a more standard way to list these reviews? A film made in response is not a review, and I think should probably be moved or removed. Victor Grigas (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This article fails to be about the movie
This article appears to be written inappropriately about the issues discussed in the movie instead of the movie itself. I looked at WP articles on other documentaries, including some very controversial ones, and they look nothing like this.

It needs a complete rewrite as an encyclopedic article about the movie itself instead of the issues discussed in the movie.

Some of the discusssions of issues in the movie might belong in a "criticisms" section but they need more reliable sources than the industry blogs cited. Sbs9 (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed a problematic para re Frack Nation
Removed:
 * In January 2013, independent filmmaker and investigative journalist Phelim McAleer released his Kickstarter-funded FrackNation, a documentary highly critical of Gasland, claiming that Fox knowingly hid relevant information on naturally occurring "burning springs".

First ref doesn't support claim, second is a letter to the editor, not a RS. Moved here in case someone wants to salvage it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that FrackNation does appear to be a reply to Gasland, so we should have something about it here -- just need better sources/text. And I know nothing about either film.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gasland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/main.asp?ArticleID=12434&SectionID=45
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130419105938/http://www.tribecafilm.com/filmguide/513a8415c07f5d47130004d0-gasland-part-ii to http://www.tribecafilm.com/filmguide/513a8415c07f5d47130004d0-gasland-part-ii

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gasland Film.jpg