I have taken years' worth of courses at my University on energy resource processing and climate change. I have studied the topic of fracking extensively and exhaustively. GasLand promotes so much garbage disinformation, bad science and hogwash propaganda, that I don't even know where to start. Let's start by saying that one dangerous chemical used in fracking is dihydrogen monoxide which is a primary component of rocket fuel and a high-temperature welding gas and kills hundreds of people each year (including children) through accidental ingestion of large amounts. Dihydrogen monoxide also reacts vigorously if exposed to any electrical current, creating two highly explosive gases (through electrolysis), potentially blowing up your home! You do not want your children anywhere near this … if you think lighting a methane fire in your faucet is bad enough, just wait. But I was just bulls**iting you! Because dihydrogen monoxide is the chemical name for water (H20). Hundreds die each year by drowning, and electricity splits the H(ydrogen) and O(xygen) apart; liquid hydrogen is pure rocket fuel, and pure oxygen is used in welding. Electrolysis is the process of splitting the H and O, two highly combustible gasses, one of which can suffocate you, and both of which (if combined) can drown you. So just as with my example above, GasLand puts together a neat bag of bulls**t, makes it sound scientifically accurate, and stupid people buy it. There are notable risks associated with fracking. But if we de-blow those risks back into proportion, using scientific and reasonable analysis, we find that the risks of fracking are in fact much less then that of oil drilling. Oil drilling has caused, and currently poses much more serious risks (Deepwater Horizon, Valdez spills ring a bell?) that don't seem to be serious enough for an OilLand documentary. Moreover, wouldn't we want to be self-sufficient in energy production and break the chains of our middle East reliance? NO I do not work for an oil company, but YES I have spent hundreds of hours studying the subject, for which I can speak for hours on … so contact me should you want an in-depth discussion of the risks (abnormal seismic activity?) I'll end with a FUN FACT: Did you know Global Warming was changed to 'Climate Change' after a team of researchers found that people were skeptical of 'Global Warming' but believed in 'Climate Change' – so politicians were instructed to replace 'Global warming' with 'Climate change' in speeches, and the trick worked. People supported climate change but not global warming, even though they're identical terms. So what gas companies need to do is slightly modify their extraction method and declare "Were not going to engage in fracking any longer, it's too dangerous … were reverting to 'standard natural gas drilling' from now on." Case closed.

FrackNation sets out to discredit the claims made in the feature length documentary film Gasland and does so quite effectively, using mostly the same journalistic techniques as Gasland itself: cherry picking evidence, cynical editing of interviews and conversations to show detractors in a negative light, misdirection etc. For example, there's a particularly irrelevant sequence in which a poor Polish grandmother speaks about the hardship she faces in paying her energy bills. It has nothing to do with objective debate about fracking whatsoever, but cynically manipulates the viewer's emotional response to the film's message (Gasland uses the same trick with sob stories of lost property values and health woes, unsubstantiated by evidence). It's curious that the majority of popular feature length documentaries follow the same basic formula: a highly persuasive attack on some phenomena or other drenched in enough ideological bias to make the editors at Fox News blush. As is fairly typical for documentary films on such emotive subjects, people who agree with the filmmaker's point of view rate it highly and rave about the film's objectivity while those who are predisposed against that point of view disparage it as industry propaganda and attack the credibility of the filmmakers. If like me to start with no pre-formed opinions on the subject of Fracking, you may find yourself very much persuaded by watching either Gasland or FrackNation, but even if you watch both, you will not have received much in the way of balanced and objective information on the subject. To get that, you need to check other, less biased sources of information. I read articles on the subject from Wikipedia, New Scientist, the United States Geological Survey and a variety of news organisations and watched both movies, and the opinion I formed was as follows: the jury is still out. There isn't very much reliable evidence that fracking causes water contamination, earthquakes or any of the other things it is blamed for, but it does appear to also be true that there are some regulatory shortcomings and independent research doesn't seem to have caught up with the pace of development in the industry. In other words, fracking is probably a good thing but we need to do more to prove that scientifically. I rated FrackNation 6/10 based on the fact that it made me think about the issues it raised and helped me to form an opinion on it's chosen subject, but in a way that was incomplete and in some ways unhelpful. It was fairly interesting to watch, but I strongly encourage anyone interested in this subject to consult sources of differing viewpoints.

Say what you want about Gasland and similar movies, but they don't keep the viewer "entertained" with just one example and a poor one at that as to why the message that the director wants to pass on is the right one. Phelim here on the other hand probably had to put all of his "journalistic" skills he could muster to find this one case where the water quality was questionable, and "prove" it is wrong. Well Phelim this may come as no surprise to you but may be of interest to others, but some states have outlawed MDs to even TALK about harmful tracking chemicals so why even bother. But ol'Phelim will just keep on poking with that oil and gas dollar funded stick of his at that ONE example he had in the whole movie where the water quality can be questioned. Fact of the matter is that the oil (and especially gas) industry in the States has been deliberately de-regulated to a bare minimum level of safety so that the extremely expensive shale gas can be produced with a profit. Plus that the whole de-regulation was done by Bush jr who is not exactly a stranger to the hydrocarbon busyness. But no - that's not what Phelim wants to talk about. Instead he will bring up the ludicrous example of some "expert" saying we will have to build one 50-MW windmill per each woman and child just to have a bare minimum of energy. As with all poorly made propaga... I mean "documentaries" that don't understand the actual problems, and rather do character assassinations, Phelim here goes out on a rampage like some scientology PI trying to attack the witness any way possible. Also funny how many "reviews" here give this "documentary" top ratings. Paid off much? Oh well. Take it from somebody that looks at what is happening in the States trough the safety glasses of an oil worker in a country that actually does put safety before profits and actually knows how to turn a buck and not have a gazillion leaky casings, poor cement jobs and evaporation of produced water into the hot desert air, and actually can put the health of FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS before questionable ventures - you failed your HSE audit, and Phelim; looking forward for your next movie. I bet it will be one defending Blackwater and CIA covert ops in the mid east, explaining how this is good for the economy, creates jobs etc etc.

I watched this documentary and I was very impressed with the depths he went to to interview people that just didn't seem to matter to the makers of Gasland. I think if you were going to do a film about a subject that you would talk to all of the residents of the area you were talking about. After watching the film, I still have a lot of questions, for both sides. I think if you watch this with an OPEN mind and are open to reason and logic, you can't help but form some conclusions from it. I do find it disturbing that the producers of Gasland would NOT talk to him at all. I urge everyone to watch this and form your own opinion. He did do quite a bit of research you didn't see in Gasland.

A well-researched and beautiful look at the untold story of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). I would be hard-pressed to find a documentary that looks better and is better informed than FrackNation. This film does what the media and other documentaries have failed to do. It gives landowners, farmers, and ordinary citizens a voice. For instance, the film reveals that in Dimock, PA--the heart of the fracking controversy--it's 11 litigants who are trying to have fracking banned ... and 1,500 people who signed a petition to say their water is fine. Where has the media been that they couldn't find one of these 1,500 people to put on the news?

When I happened across this movie 20 minutes into it, I thought, "How clever of Big Energy, hiring this humble filmmaker to create pro-fracking propaganda for them." But the longer I watched, the clearer it became to me that McAleer wasn't advocating fracking, just pursuing facts and not pushing anything. I came away with a realization that yeah! there really is another side to the "conventional wisdom." I'm guessing the majority of people who have even heard of fracking are against it because of what they've been fed by "green" types helped by media that are more lazy than biased. I hope McAleer's message will somehow reach people whose attitude is, "Don't confuse me with facts."

I found this to be an enjoyable and informative documentary. Anyone who has endured the lies and distortions of _Gasland_ should watch this as a corrective follow-up. I had feared that _FrackNation_ would be a dumb American TV-style film, but was pleased to find it kept the intelligence level pretty high and the pace was even. The film is very well photographed and edited, and the sound was clearly conveyed throughout (subtitles are used on some sections). Some documentaries are better heard without the visuals, as if they're radio documentaries - but in this one the visual are really integral. Personally I would have cut the short and weak speculative section (Delingpole through to Putin) on possible Russian money finding its way to anti- shale gas campaigners. Similarly the fleeting aside about the Chinese and their attempts to corner the market in rare-earth magnets for wind turbines. Maybe true, maybe not - but it sounds too conspiratorial, since no evidence is presented. I would have also cut the camerawoman being slightly wounded (by an art gallery guard who had wrenched her camera out of her hand) near the end of the film. I also found a little cheesy the slightly over-manipulative footage of happy kids near the end. These visual elements add little or nothing to the film's argument. But generally this is a fine debunking of the deeply misleading _Gasland_.

Nearly three decades ago I was an administrative manager for a large, international drilling company. After a few years I was hired as the general manager of a small 3 rig company based in Oklahoma. We drilled oil and gas wells in Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. So I consider myself to be extremely knowledgeable about fracking because EVERY well we drilled was fracked. I don't know of any wells in the area in which we were drilling that were not fracked. We drilled wells from 3,000 feet to 10,000 feet and larger companies with larger rigs drilled far deeper. And I am not aware of even one instance that ground water was affected or dangerous "fumes" being released to the atmosphere except in the event of an accident or equipment failure. And those were fixed within two to three days at the most. If you drive through Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas right now - nearly 30 years after we drilled in those areas - you would have a difficult time locating producing gas wells. The land was taken care of when it was drilled and completely brought back to it's original condition (or better) save for a few dozen square yards where the wellhead is actually producing before it goes into a system of underground pipelines. There are no ground water problems; cows drink from all the ponds, streams, and lakes; and 99% of the ranchers and land owners are still farming and ranching on family lands partly because of the revenue they receive each month from those wells. So this film was RIGHT ON THE MONEY! The science that was investigated and the logical fact checking of the anti-fracking groups couldn't have been more accurate. One thing that was mentioned in the film that should be constantly advertised is that from the surface to the total depth of the well is lined by 3-4 layers of pipes and linings all layered with high density cement to prevent any possibility of ground water contamination. NO ONE gets their drinking water, livestock water, or any other water to consume from the depths these wells are being drilled. And fracking takes place in only the producing zones of the well which is, in most cases, thousands of feet below the water table or aquifer. This is a film that is clear and honest. It deserves widespread public viewing. And finally the question should be asked: Who wins and who profits if fracking is somehow banned in the United States? That is a subject for another documentary and I hope Phlem and Ann begin an earnest search for those answers. I will be the first in line to donate to another Kickstart fund to make it happen.

Finally had time to sit down with the DVR and watch this tonight. Had seen Gasland. Very well done and nicely presented. Not the theatrics and hype of Gasland. It seemed ethical and fairly unbiased. I enjoyed seeing both sides of the coin, as it were. Living in TX and having worked in the fracking industry; I was curious to see how it would be betrayed. Well done! I don't think HBO needs to pay for a Gasland 2. Maybe a FrackNation 2 would be a better investment. I do feel for the folks of Dimock. Their small, quiet farm life has become a source of invasion. I hope these farmers are able to save their land either through fracking or some other means. If there is a part 2, while I hate to see them invaded again, it would be nice to see if they were able to save the farms.

Really quite shocked that such a revealing, truthful documentary was able to be published in America. Now, if this does not show Americans how Hollywood, Gov bureaus,political power, land grabbers,foreign governments are at war with your liberties, than we do not deserve our freedom. This does reveal how our energy and food costs are controlled and manipulated with lies by individuals, town,city,state, federal and political parties. Took a foreign journalist,Phelim McAleer,with the courage and investigative talent, that not one American journalist can stand shoulder-to-shoulder and measure up to. What a shame that Americans are blind and lead by the hand to the slaughterhouse because of their ignorance.