FrackNation (2013) User Reviews

No less biased than Gasland

[wwarby · 6/10 · 22 November 2013]

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.

Very enjoyable and informative - a must see!

[gtranquilla · 10/10 · 28 November 2014]

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!

Freedom of Information

[slypig65-82-921433 · 10/10 · 17 August 2014]

It was nice to hear the other side of the story. I'm sick of the 1% (actors and rich politicians) manipulating our information to fit their agendas. There are too many groups in our country who wish to censor opposition rather than have a calm debate over the facts. Why wouldn't you welcome investigations by multiple source to prove your point? America needs more debate and information free of censorship. This documentary was well produced. It really showed how we in America can be managed by a biased media. Actors who are either uninformed or have their own agenda push questionable information. We need to question the information put before us rather than viciously supporting it and tearing down opposition. This film does exactly what we all need to do. When presented with information first ask if it's true. Seek out other sources that support or disprove the information. To be clear, I'm not saying I believe this documentary 100%. Only that it's nice to hear another point of view.

Completely biased and ignorant of the facts

[fatmatth · 1/10 · 1 May 2014]

This movie (I cannot refer to it as a documentary, as it has been carefully scripted) appears to be the gas industry's response to Gasland. The entire movie is a bunch of people with a vested interest in hydraulic fracturing being interviewed. An utter farce.

The industry has either paid jobbers to write glowing 10/10 reviews or made their own staff construct the reviews to try and give a false rating. Who in their right mind goes and gives a documentary 10/10, no room for improvement? They are clearly paid to write these bogus reviews.

I am sure this review in itself will be given poor ratings as well, just like the other negative review of the film on IMDb.

Great Documentary that contradicts the Big Media Lie

[mikehosk · 10/10 · 11 January 2013]

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.

A personal attack masquerading as documentary

[acerbus_8 · 1/10 · 28 November 2014]

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.

Excellent documentary

[davidekozak · 10/10 · 20 August 2014]

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.

Awful propaganda

[johanbergman40 · 1/10 · 18 November 2013]

This dreadful film is crafty in it's creation but delving deeper into the supposed "experts" used in the film you find close ties with the energy sector and the right wing "tea party". This article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-horn/fracknation_b_3384531.html) can gives a good insight into the films background and when you watch it with this knowledge in mind you just see it for the biased bullsh*t it is. The film never once questions fracking as a bad idea and uses the most patronising animations to explain how simple fracking is as if teaching to junior infants. If this guy thinks he will convince anyone with half a brain that he was even remotely unbiased he has another thing coming. You never quite trust him at all in the film simply because he never puts into question the dangers of fracking of which of course there are due to pipes breaking a mile underground.

Excellent documentary that does what a documentary should: shine a light on truth

[bud6077 · 10/10 · 25 January 2013]

When Michael Moore filmed Roger and Me, I applauded him for standing up to big corporate America. Ironically, the tables have completely turned. Documentarians who once were interested in uncovering truth and righting wrongs have now turned to pushing agendas and twisting facts. The latest efforts by such filmmakers as Michael Moore, Al Gore, and the newest member of the club, Josh Fox, show that one-sided analyses, coupled with big Hollywood production values, are enough to brainwash masses of people.

Ironically, the tables have completely turned. Those who once fought for speaking truth to power are now the power--and they want to bully and silence filmmakers like Phelim McAleer. While they claim the speak for the common man, McAleer literally went to the common man to fund this project through Kickstarter, and the people he interviews in the film are all farmers and landowners who have been silenced by big environmental activist groups, helped by big Hollywood and a left-wing media.

McAleer's statistics are well-researched, beautifully presented, and provide a much-needed "other side of the story" to a debate that's been dominated by loud and intolerant voices.

I won't go so far as to say it's completely balanced or unbiased, but it does do the thing that great documentaries do: showcase the hypocrisy and the intolerance of the left and bring to light those whose voices have been silenced by the conspiracy of NGOs, politicians, and media working together. And it shows what a hypocrite Josh Fox is, a coward who can't take in as he dishes out.

It's really a shame that these same mindless robots and useful idiots are going to come to IMDb and downvote this movie and this review. Don't pay attention to whatever rating you see. This documentary is, bar none, the best I've seen in the last year and one of the top 10 I've seen in my life. If you're interested in understanding the truth beyond all the obfuscation and lies promulgated by the anti-fracking fanatics, you owe it to yourself to watch this.

Time to get the fracks straight

[StevePulaski · 8/10 · 30 July 2013]

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.

An American oil&gas lackey goes out to "dig up dirt" on the environmentalists

[baberchik · 1/10 · 27 June 2014]

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.

An enjoyable and informative documentary.

[futurilla · 8/10 · 17 August 2013]

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_.

Slickly Packaged Bunk Disguised as Journalism

[plpelland · 2/10 · 24 July 2014]

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.

unconventional wisdom

[apboy2 · 8/10 · 18 July 2013]

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."

Extremely biased and misleading

[rlmarker · 1/10 · 2 April 2015]

At first I was thinking that it was nice that an independent felt so positive toward fracking. Then I began to realize the "independent" meant something different than I thought. Some examples follow.

The representative from the Texas environmental agency stated that of the 50 air samples from Best, TX none of them exceeded the short-term exposure limits set by the EPA. This seems to sound good, but short-term exposure limits might be suitable for a worker only exposed a few hours a day. They aren't suitable for a general population exposure on an ongoing basis. So, what were the results from these 50 tests when measured against general air quality standards? Another example is citing the earthquakes from the Geysers Geothermic plant in California. The plant did not "cause" the earthquakes. The earthquakes are a natural occurring phenomenon that go hand-in-hand with the geysers.

They stated that it fracking was responsible for almost no earthquakes. While this may technically be true, it is extremely misleading. It is the disposal wells used for the chemicals used for fracking that cause the earthquakes. These have steadily been increasing. Now there are several 4.0 magnitude earthquakes month in the Oklahoma area. There is no responsible person denying the linkage with fracking. To state otherwise is like the tobacco industry saying that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

My concern is that the chemicals disposed into the earth may follow fracture lines created by the earthquakes and contaminate the aquifer. This aquifer covers 174,000 square miles under parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. Could we possibly make these regions uninhabitable? I know this is probably unlikely, but what if it happened? There would be no going back! The fracking industry was exempted from the Clean Water and Clean Drinking Water acts. The narrator explains that this was so the states could regulate them. This seems ludicrous to me. We all know why they might get such an exemption and it is not comforting.

They quoted a professor who was world-renowned in his expert testimony saying that chemicals that were listed as carcinogenic were listed that way because they were given in massive doses to rats. He stated that those findings did not mean they were carcinogenic to humans. How misleading is that? Perhaps we should totally ignore cancer research into carcinogenic pathogens.

I turned the movie off before the last 20 minutes finished. It fell far short of presenting the unbiased view I had hoped to find.

Gasland Exposed

[sstaedtler · 10/10 · 1 February 2013]

Usually you would think a movie about fracking in the oil and gas industry would be boring, but this movie is anything but. As Phelim McAleer sets out to clear up some inconsistencies in the movie Gasland, what he finds is one lie after another. Environmentalists threatening to sue him, one claiming she has a gun and wouldn't hesitate to use it. The truth is, and this was a great point, that if all these poor rural farmers in PA and NY go out of business and declare bankruptcy, that land becomes shopping centers and housing developments, and you lose open space which is used by so many animals. Also interesting in this movie was that Russia and other oil and gas countries promote that fracking is dangerous in the US and Europe so that they can benefit...so everyone must buy from them at high prices. Too many times what we see is the bad accusations with fracking, and none of the benefits. This is a great film and one made on a low budget, not funded by oil and gas companies, but by regular landowners. No matter what side of the fence you are on, this is a must-watch. Josh Fox to me has a lot of explaining to do and cannot continue to hide from questions about his film Gasland.

One of the most powerful documentaries I've ever seen

[euler010 · 10/10 · 3 February 2013]

Before this documentary was released, I had been hearing a lot about Josh Fox's movie Gasland; it had been creating a lot of buzz. It was my plan to eventually watch it. The week that Fracknation was first broadcast on TV, I was able to record it along with Gasland. I watched them back-to-back that week. (Note: there are some spoilers in this review.) After first watching Gasland, I was disturbed by the powerful imagery of what these unassuming people had to endure as a result of the frac'ing taking place near their homes. The claims that Fox made seemed to be well substantiated. Though his movie is a little slow and somber, it leaves a powerful impression on the viewer.

I then watched Fracknation. I knew that it was a rebuttal to Gasland, and I was wondering how its producers were going to be able to account for the seemingly overwhelming amount of data showing frac'ing to be harmful. Boy were they able to! Point by point (co-director) McAleer was able to dismantle Fox's claims. The stories of the citizens of Dimock, Pa were drastically different from what Fox would have you believe. The findings of the EPA and the state environmental agency coroaborated this as well. It seems as though nearly all of the "evidence" Fox gave was fabricated. I realized that Fox wasn't just wrong about frac'ing, he was lying. Few seem to be calling him on his lies either.

Fracknation is an inspiring movie if you care about ideas and the truth. Seeing how the first director uses propaganda to sell his message and the second pursues the truth is a powerful lesson in today's society. It shows us just how easy it can be to sell lies, and it reminds us how we need to always be skeptical when accepting assumed truths. Given the importance of energy as a means for human life, there are few documentaries more important than this one. I have little doubt that Fracknation will significantly change the national discourse on frac'ing. Go see it!

Fracknation is fracking lame

[makoxl · 2/10 · 10 January 2015]

I've watched hundreds of documentaries and this has to be the most blatant example of an attack-docu. Let's be honest about the topic, 99.9999% of people don't know anything about this but it seems that a lot of people in this movie and it's counterpart are able to speak on the topic in great depth. Bringing Russia into this documentary as a main topic is pretty weak in general, almost desperate!

This movie is so bad it's worth watching. I don't give a frack about either side of the debate but this movie makes me want to be anti- fracking.

Frack this piece of fracking ****.

Excellent and Accurate Film

[amay-84850 · 10/10 · 29 March 2016]

This was wonderful to see, it seems like only environmentalists get to write documentaries and with a monopoly they can spin the facts any way they want to. This film showed the drilling and fracking process accurately. I was please to see they included the permitting process for a well (2-3 years they say, but I know of 5 year permitting delays on Federal lands). They also include the plight of farmers, often the only way a farmer can keep his land these days is if oil or gas are produced on the property. When I was born (in 1952) my family had 50 farmers, now there are none. Oil and gas would have helped them keep their farms. And the Soutners were shown to be lying, the stars of Gasland, that was priceless.

Phelim's film reiterates a claim of 'absolutely nothing to see here, Yay fracking!'

[rdconrad-605-835475 · 3/10 · 26 November 2014]

INEXCUSABLE of Phelim (sounds like a quaint and olde Irish pronunciation of film) to totally skip the concept of Global Climate changes r/t rising Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Carbon Monoxide (among others) which could cause catastrophic flooding - even lead to extinction events within a century. Water pollution consequences have been admitted to even by Fracking Industry sources, but Phelim's film keeps reiterating a claim of 'absolutely nothing to see here, all fracking is totally o.k.'!! Same for all of the other mentioned problems like earthquakes, air pollution, land losses, fires, etc. - TOTAL DENIAL! No way, Jose... If Josh Fox is a fraudulent huckster as Phelim would portray him, then it is MOST abundantly clear that Phelim is way worse, and I would venture that he and his adherents are quite dangerously so.

Nice presentation of the frack industry

[dot_doctor · 9/10 · 6 February 2013]

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.

MASSIVELY FLAWED.

[michael1123 · 2/10 · 30 November 2019]

I am completely capable of listening to both sides of an argument, I believe in empiricism as the foundation of truth but there are massive flaws to this documentary. Phelim McAleer creates the guise of an objective documentary but instead criticizes only a narrow portion of the argument against fracking...so narrow in fact that despite trying to discredit Gasland's argument, he doesn't even address the majority of the locations in Gasland. Additionally, he negates air pollution ALTOGETHER. It's not even included as an aspect of the film (except to talk to people in LA at Baldwin Hills about how great the air is, which is laughable considering LA is one of the most smog covered cities in the country), instead he wastes the financial resources of his documentary to go to Poland to talk to a woman about her energy bills in order to characterize Russia as having an ulterior motive to being against shale oil...THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO WHETHER OR NOT FRACK OPERATIONS ARE POLLUTING THE WATER/AIR IN THE U.S......He bothers to point out some flaws in Gasland, but creates a straw man argument by discrediting only a few details and not providing sufficient evidence to discredit the general concept that fracking has harmful consequences on the planet. Furthermore, if you bother to research the director and the sources he uses in the film you will find a very obvious political bias. This documentary has bits of truth, but is not even close to having a comprehensive factual scope.

"The truth will set you free."

[myronbranch · 10/10 · 2 February 2013]

I had heard some of the buzz from the Anti-fracking movement, but I never had any real data on which to form a personal position on the issue. It was pure luck that I stumbled upon this film at all. I have watched other documentaries about religious, social and political issues. In my opinion there were only two that did not show an obvious bias. This film is one of them. Ben Stein's documentary expelled is the other. I thought the director did a fantastic job of presenting the facts of the case without an agenda. He was not the main focus of the film. It felt like he was just a facilitator. He allowed the data and the people involved to speak for themselves. The best part: he provided real verifiable data from independent sources. Real honest investigative journalism. Very refreshing.

Nice to hear the other side for once

[szootman-648-109431 · 10/10 · 28 June 2014]

This is an excellent film and it gets right to the truth about liberals in America, who use their money and connections to impose their will on us all. 99% of the time that will is in the form of some terrible social policy that ends up being destructive and expensive.liberals may have money to force these issues but they don't seem to want to pay when it comes down to it. once they start having to pay more taxes you hear them Cry and tell everyone who will listen that it is unfair that they should have to pay so much!

Liberalism is a mental disorder that causes a physical problem on our Nation, it causes Cancer ! if you look at what these people push on to us all ,you'll see it is destructive and expensive and non sustainable in the end! this small group of very wealthy and connected groups have hurt lots of Americans with their ignorance and stubborn mindset.

We need to continue to Frack and create new energy for us all. when that happens we will see America that is stringer and much better.

We have gone through some very tough years with this Anti American president and he gives credence to all these extremist groups like the people who made that movie that is full of lies and tried to confuse and scare people into believing in what "they" want.the truth is fracking has been around for over 60 years and it is one of the safest ways to harness the energy god has gifted to us all!!!!

Eye opening documentary of energy and food costs rising.

[czar1213 · 10/10 · 1 February 2013]

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.