252 The Environmental Debate
make it appear as if outside Harrisburg there’s
nothing but a cheering section for Marcellus
development.
The issue is complicated, and the truth is
neither as benign as the lobbyists’ vision, nor as
apocalyptic as Fox’s.
One of the greatest drawbacks of “Gasland”
is the film implies that the problems people
encounter with their water are the result of the
fracking process.
Essentially, Marcellus drilling is a three-
step procedure: gas companies drill a very
deep hole, then they pump millions of gallons
of water, sand and chemicals into the hole to
shatter or “fracture” the shale which releases
the gas, then they remove the gas over the
course of years. Things can go wrong at every
stage.
The mantra of the gas industry is there
has never been a proven instance of well water
contamination caused by the fracking process,
which so far remains true.
Most of the problems documented in “Gas-
land” — including in Dimock — resulted from
the drilling, not the fracking procedure. But that
does not mean fracking fluids pose no threat to
our water supplies. They contain some chemi-
cals that are harmful even in very tiny amounts.
The fluid that comes back up out of the ground
is saturated with salts, is sometimes radioactive
and often contains harmful heavy metals like
arsenic.
Carl Kirby, a geologist at Bucknell who
does not appear in the film, says the prospect of
fracking fluids migrating up through thousands
of feet of rock to contaminate water wells is
“unlikely but not impossible.”
The history of what’s gone wrong thus far
in Pennsylvania suggests accident and human
error pose as much risk as the fracking process,
an angle Fox does not explore.
Several weeks ago, a truck full of fracking brine
overturned at an intersection about eight miles
from my family home. The spill was containedAnd while it does not aspire to the objectiv-
ity of a National Geographic documentary, it
also sidesteps the Michael Moore style. Largely
absent are the guerrilla editing and snarky narra-
tion that have become the trademark of Moore’s
films. Instead, Fox showcases his subjects, lets
their personalities — both good and bad —
shine through, and he lets them explain their
own problems.
Their insights and frustrations should give
Pennsylvanians plenty to ponder.
That said, “Gasland” presents a carefully
crafted point of view. Not everything in the
film’s narration is precisely accurate. Not all of
its subjects are completely credible. Some major
components of the story are missing.
At no point does Fox examine the voracious
American appetite for energy that drives natural
gas drilling, nor does he attempt to provoke in
the viewer any sense of responsibility for what
is shown.
Here, in the interest of full-disclosure, I
should note that I grew up living over one of
the largest natural gas storage fields in North
America and only about 600 yards from one of
Dominion Transmission’s big compressor sta-
tions.
I know what an emergency blow-down feels
like at 4 a.m.: One goes bolt upright from sound
sleep because the roar sounds like a jet fighter
is taking off from your front yard, windows
rattling, apocalypse approaching, as all of the
gas in the station suddenly blows into the sky
to release pressure and prevent an explosion.
But in my neck of the woods, the benefits of the
industry generally outweigh the drawbacks. My
mother retired as an engineer after 20 years of
working at the station.
“Gasland” makes gas industry lobbyists
apoplectic, and they have “debunked” the film
on at least two websites. But these folk are no
strangers to selective presentation themselves.
The industry issues a weekly Marcellus
newsletter that rips quotes from news stories to