Here We Go Again: Gasland Part 2 aka Josh Fox In a Tinfoil Hat

Well, we’ve been hearing that the sequel to the documentary, Gasland, has been coming for 2 years and it looks like it is finally within striking distance.  If you’ve been living under a rock for the past few years then you don’t know that Gasland is a 2010 documentary by Josh Fox that purported to shine a light on the dangers of fracking.  The original documentary has been most thoroughly debunked by a laundry list of experts, independent studies, and a recently released documentary, FrackNation.  Energy in Depth and the IPAA also produced a rebuttal documentary called TruthLand, although none of these debunkings have gotten as much press as the original inflammatory documentary.


The Tribeca Film Festival recently announced their lineup for the 12th edition of the festival, which is set for April 17th-28th in New York City.  One of the 33 films spotlighted will be the world premier of “Gasland Part 2”, they describe it as follows:

Two years ago, Josh Fox introduced us to hydraulic fracturing with his Oscar®-nominated exposé Gasland. Now this once-touted energy source has become a widely discussed, contentious topic. In his follow-up, Fox reveals the extreme circumstances facing those affected by fracking, from earthquakes to the use of federal anti-terror psychological operations tactics. Gasland Part II is the definitive proof that issues raised by fracking cannot be ignored for long.

As you can see the flair for the dramatic still exists, and I’m sure the ‘facts’ will be ripe with misrepresentations such as the ones we have previously seen.  Just the description alone looks like a guy who thinks the ‘men in black’ are out to get him.

If you’d like to see a more grounded representation of the facts, then check out the following resources:

FrackNation –

TruthLand –

All in all, I doubt that Gasland 2 will be much of a big deal — and likely will blow over fairly quickly for the general public.  I think it is important for us in the oil and gas industry to keep abreast of these types of propaganda, inevitably some landowners will ask about the things they see.  After the documentary has aired I’m sure our industry associations will come out with some literature or publications that addresses the concerns that will be raised — and I think that’s the best way to deal with it.  Don’t attempt to argue about the (de)merits of the documentary, just point them to factual information that debunks the lies.  If the facts don’t convince people, then arguing with them wouldn’t have convinced them either.

Do you have any other great resources debunking the myths that have been propagated by Josh Fox and his documentary?  Tell us about them in the comments below!

Randy Young

Randy Young

Randy is a land consultant with experience in field and in-house land work, land administration, and software consulting with systems used in the land management business. He is an active member of the AAPL, HAPL, and NHAPL and is a regular attendee of industry functions. Randy's latest projects have included land data systems integrations, with a focus on Quorum Land System.

  • Frederick Malouf says:

    Wrote this to fracknation and truthland. As you support them, the same argument applies to you:


    Watched Gasland. Read this: which seems to be the same as your PDF in the media page. That seems to be the only facts Truthland have.

    The most prevalent sentence is this: ‘The truth is, there isn’t a single “hazardous” additive used in the fracturing process that’s hidden from public view.’ That implies that there are hazardous chemicals in tracking, but they are all known. Whether before or after the movie is irrelevant. What matters is how hazardous they are, right?

    Your experts are people Gasland says are irreputable, so to have them as your defence for tracking is also irrelevant. History is also meaningless to explain safety, unless you go into technicals about how tracking technology is better, or worse, since its creation. No doubt, one aspect to address is the scope and magnitude of tracking then and now.

    You also do address the facts that Helliburton, et al, were not given exemption to any environmental acts. If tracking is so safe, why did it need that?

    And, would you drink the water, even after the ‘safe’ testing?

    So, you may want to fight back with docos that support your claims, but you need to get into detail. For now, it looks like some PR told you to get back at docos the same way, but you need to verify who you are and why you are interested. It’s looks like someone is funding you with other interests in mind.

    The crunch for what you do is up to whether you want water to live. Is any energy worth sacrificing water to such a degree? And if the money was spent in renewables, what would the outcomes have been? Fund fossils, or renewables, for money?

    So, what is money to you? The opportunity to buy water when there was no need for it to be scarce anyway? Or to power your TV for amusement?

    Also read this:

    I’ll be sending this to him through that page as I do not have his direct email.

    It’s your world, too. Think about why you need the natural gas in the first place.

    Thanks for gifting me your time.

    B O N D I L O C A L S
    F A C E B O O K | T W I T T E R | Y O U T U B E
    + 6 1 4 1 5 6 3 2 1 5 2
    How would I define myself? That’s like asking the definition of infinity …. 🙂

    • Randy Young Randy Young says:

      I’m guessing English is not your first language. And since this article wasn’t meant to argue about gasland vs fracknation I won’t. However, you do mention you have seen Gasland, but nowhere do you mention you have watched Fracknation (or Truthland). I feel to have an appropriate editorial you should watch everything that is relevant and make a decision based on that information.

  • >