FrackNation

Speaking now as a less extreme environmentalist - this director is professional and not scared to confront opponents head-on sometimes reminding me of Michael Moore. He also uncovers a great deal of misinformation.

His "investigation" spans all the way from Western Europe, thru New England, down to Texas and finally to California.

Sorry I did not see this one a long time ago......it helped me to get a clearer understanding of the real issues because it references very reliable and reputable sources and solid scientific data. I could only find one piece of misinformation in the documentary......

For those whose motto is... "My mind is made up so don't try to confuse me with facts"..... do not watch this documentary.... it will just exacerbate your state of confusion!

It quickly becomes pretty clear that this "documentary" is a personal attack on a documentary called Gasland and it's director. Had the "doc" been much better in it's execution and less eager to subvert just one man and his work. Then it could actually have delivered something that could've sparked a debate.

The theme is therefor less about researching fracking, and more about trying to discredit Gasland.

A lot of effort is poured into maintaining that the film was funded on Kickstarter. Actually so much effort go into iterating this, that it begins to become suspect. On top of this, researching superficially on the director "Phelim McAleer" quickly tells the story of a "documentarian" who has worked to support big business.

As for FrackNation as a whole it is a disjointed piece of work that, in its quest to connect human emotion with fracking, keep losing focus throughout. From obviously staged "demonstrations" in Dimock & ridiculous confrontations. To the involuntarily humorous, with it's attacks on renewable energy: "Wind turbines are massive, 24/7, ruthless, bird killing machines" and scenes where fracking becomes the great savior of farms (even though fracking has nothing to do with farming) around the country, purporting that should a farm dissipate it would automatically be replaced by residential buildings which would contribute massive amounts of pollution through traffic and well-digging.

We also have an interview with a biochemist called Bruce Ames on the chemicals used in the fracking process. But instead of explaining the chemicals, the issue is sidestepped and the conclusion just becomes "Scare stories sell newspapers", again taking jabs at Gasland.

It all closes with a corny propagandistic ad for energy, that feels completely disjointed from the rest of the movie. And a monologue that concludes, without any real data, that fracking is completely without problems.

In conclusion. The documentary merits of this film are severely lacking and even though the film-maker behind, goes to great lengths to talk up the "documentary's" independence from the energy industry. You're left with the distinct feeling that even though the film was financed through Kickstarter, the backers are the energy industry who've just made the contributions look like they were donated by a lot of different people.

Now I have to see Gasland. Hopefully that will be much better than this dribble.

FrackNation, in terms of documentary filmmaking, is a competent exercise in trying to get to the bottom of an issue that needs to be dissected. I found it a more entertaining and less vindictive watch than Josh Fox's Gasland, the anti-fracking documentary that is heavily examined and critiqued in this film. I firmly believe in terms of approach and direction that if you were to show the same audience both Gasland and FrackNation back-to-back, the consensus would be that FrackNation's information is more accessible and caters more to the public, whereas Gasland caters to the more science-minded individual. Now which approach and direction leads to the correct distribution of facts I'm still trying to figure out.

I guess I should begin by saying that fracking (formerly known as "hydraulic fracturing") is the process in which a large machine drills into the ground from a well - roughly a mile deep - straight down, before it turns sideways and exhibits hard pressure, extracting natural gas from shale and sending it back up through the well.

The film stars Phelim McAleer, an investigative journalist whose "freelance" title better not make you laugh. McAleer is a stand-up guy, a strong interviewer, and a serious-minded writer, and was inspired to make this film when his question about the water supply in Dimmock, Pennsylvania (the main town of focus in Gasland) is casually dismissed when asked to Josh Fox. McAleer makes an effort to visit the residents of Dimmock, Pennsylvania, who Fox depicted to be suffering from the effects of fracking considerably. In this film, we saw pro-fracking gatherings in the street and learn that after Fox's film was released the town of Dimmock received much help they didn't really need since the effects of fracking were not harming them. They were actually booning their economy and helping farmers, the long, and sadly-dying, chain of Americans.

Gasland's tagline was "Can you set your water on fire?," and featured several clips of Fox and the locals lighting their tapwater on fire. All of them claimed it was a direct result of fracking in the area, and that the numerous chemicals the process utilized had found their way in the water supply and contaminated it with things like benzine and methane. McAleer's research and interviews with locals reveal that methane in the water supply has existed long before fracking even began, and the process has been around for many, many years to begin with, with no reports of it harming the water supply (it drills a mile past it, even).

Not to mention, in Gasland, fracking is depicted in the light that leads one to believe it is highly unregulated, which leads to the conclusion that this is why people are lighting their tapwater on fire. Quite the contrary. The film (and research on my part) shows the pile of paperwork that must be done before the drilling process can commence. It is a very regulated procedure. Not long ago, my state Illinois approved fracking but, as the state is known to do, passed strict regulations - the strictest of all the states that allow fracking to be conducted.

FrackNation does a solid job of getting the facts right, from what research can tell me. The thing I appreciate about McAleer as a filmmaker and as a documentary personality is that he doesn't seem to enter the film with the preconceived notion to dismantle the institution and the process of anti-fracking protests or vice-versa. He wants answers, and as a journalist, he goes about them the right way. He stages formal interviews, he asks the tough question, and he holds a tough magnifying glass to opposition, even when the opposition tries to recoil and stay hidden. The examination process alone makes this a pretty recommendable viewing.

The film was funded on donations from the crowd-sourcing website Kickstarter, which allows people to post information about potential-products and asking anyone on the web who believes in the product (whether it be a film, a documentary, a piece of technology, a novel, etc) to send a donation of whatever amount they see fit.

So, the real question is what do I think of Gasland after seeing the film? I still find it relative in some regards because it's a film that shows a perspective and goes about it in a mature and sensible way. However, examination at even a basic level makes it a highly questionable piece of work as of now.

When I assign the accursed (and soon to be scrapped) star rating to films, especially documentaries, I consider content, direction, approach, presentation, obvious bias, the personality of the filmmaker at hand, and stylistic attributes (if applicable). FrackNation succeeds on most levels to a certain degree and earns a recommendation. An in-depth examination and a fact-checker I am not. It does the job of giving the viewer a strong ground on which reputable points are made in the favor of the pro-fracking side. It successfully made me consider on a deeper level the process of hydraulic fracturing and encouraged me to research outside of three documentaries. That has to mean something, right? Starring: Phelim McAleer. Directed by: Ann McElhinney, Phelim McAleer, and Magdalena Segieda.

GREAT DOCUMENTARY !! Phelim's unassuming interview style belies a tenacious knack for getting to the truth, seeing his subjects melt down is worth it alone. The movie makes a clear case for the benefits of fracking including how safe it is. With the positives massively outweighing the negatives you have to wonder why our Gov't and the enviros (AKA the Left) fight it so hard to destroy it ?? A MUST SEE !! The film showcases how fracking is accomplished and the small ecological footprint it leaves. Most of all it contradicts Big Media's attempts to destroy fracking. The film"Gasland" is an attempt at pure propaganda. The director, Josh Fox, is confronted a number of times by Fracknation's director, Phelim McAleer, and refuses to answer questions.

I just finished watching "Fracknation", a documentary film by Irish director Phelim McAleer that purports to be a "journalist's search for the fracking truth". What a blatant piece of propaganda! Very slickly produced, the film was funded through a Kickstarter campaign, which was a very clever ploy to avoid disclosing the filmmakers' obvious love affair with climate change deniers and the oil and gas industry. Far from searching out the truth, this film is a one-sided (and, on the surface, convincing) attempt to debunk the anti-fracking documentary GASLAND and its sequel, Gasland 2.

It does not take long to see where this film is going, as it demonizes Josh Fox (the director of Gasland) and discredits anybody who appeared in that documentary. The film is filled with clever editing, tear-jerking scenes of farmers who claim that gas leases are the key to their survival, interviews with academic scientists who remind you of the types of so-called scientists who would deny that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, and the type of imagery that is a cross between Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" and the public relations films that came out of the chemical industry back in the 1950s and 1960s.

If you were to believe this film, there is not a single documented case of water contamination or seismic activity associated with fracking. Among other things, the film suggests that: 1) broccoli contains more carcinogens than fracking fluid 2) geothermal wells are the greatest cause of earthquakes 3) the manufacture of solar panels is one of the most toxic processes on the planet.

There is no mention of discharge wells and no mention of the massive volumes of water that are used (and subsequently contaminated) in the fracking process. To the contrary, the film suggests that there are only 3 days when a fracking well represents even the slightest risks, followed by 20, 30 or 40 years of clean energy production, satisfying the world's insatiable love of energy. It even goes as far as to suggest that Vladimir Putin is orchestrating opposition to fracking in Europe and the United States because he does not want to see inexpensive natural gas production interfering with the export profits of Gazprom, the Russian gas giant.

This film is anything but a search for the truth. It is nothing more than slickly packaged bunk disguised as journalism.