October 10, 2026

Television Review: Josh Fox’s ‘Gasland Part II’ Is to Be Shown on HBO

The message of Mr. Fox’s “Gasland Part II” is that while the battles over the investigation and regulation of fracking wax and wane — with the anti-regulatory forces currently on top — thousands of additional wells that use this controversial natural-gas drilling technique are being sunk.

“Gasland Part II,” which had its premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival and is being shown on Monday by HBO, paints a convincing picture: homeowners at the mercy of the oil and gas industry wait while government agencies make tentative moves toward regulation that eventually come to nothing or are reversed.

  And this was before the Environmental Protection Agency last month walked away from its promise to investigate water contamination in Pavillion, Wyo., which is shown in the film as one of the most significant victories for aggrieved homeowners.

Mr. Fox works in the first-person style of colorful mudslingers like Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock, but his tone is more sad and mordant, his blank face a melancholy emblem of the hopelessness of the situation. He is constantly present in the film, taking on a kind of minstrel’s or bard’s role that’s emphasized by shots of him strumming a banjo in the woods near his Pennsylvania home. At one point he celebrates his own doggedness by beginning to run the closing credits before announcing that no, the story isn’t over yet.

The original “Gasland” grew out of a company’s effort to pay Mr. Fox for exploration rights to his land, which lies above the Marcellus Shale formation and its huge reserves of natural gas. “Part II” briefly recapitulates his personal history and revisits communities that were featured in “Gasland” — where shots of methane-laced water being set on fire are still de rigueur — and traces the legal and political fights of the intervening years, citing studies and statistics attesting to the health dangers of fracking.

Putting all of this material into an economical yet coherent package would be a challenge for any documentarian, and organization is not the specialty of Mr. Fox, who directed, wrote and edited “Gasland Part II.” The film runs to two hours and its anecdotal, hopscotch style starts to wear.

And, as with “Gasland,” there are questions, large and small, that can nag at you. Would it have been a bad idea to include at least one interview with a homeowner who professes to support drilling? Did the dog with the missing leg somehow lose the limb because of fracking, as a dramatic cut would have us believe?

Most of Mr. Fox’s material isn’t open to question, however. Recordings of a gas industry conference at which public relations managers are told to study the Army’s counterinsurgency manual — because “we are dealing with an insurgency” when it comes to protesters and angry homeowners — are both hilarious and horrifying. Mr. Fox’s account of the Pennsylvania government’s hiring of a private company to monitor fracking protesters, an episode not widely covered outside the state, is particularly valuable.

It’s hard to take issue with Mr. Fox’s resigned conclusion that economic and political forces will soon spread fracking around the world, no matter how harmful critics say it may be to the environment and our health.

To provide a glimpse of the hardball tactics he’s talking about, Mr. Fox runs a Google search for his own name and puts the result on screen. There, directly above his Wikipedia entry, we can see who has bought “JoshFox” as a search phrase: a gas-industry trade group offering the “Truth About Gasland.”

Gasland Part II

HBO, Monday night at 9, Eastern and Pacific times; 8, Central time.

Directed by Josh Fox; Mr. Fox, Trish Adlesic and Deborah Wallace, producers; Matthew Sanchez, co-producer; Mr. Fox and Mr. Sanchez, cinematographers; Mr. Fox, editor. For HBO; Sheila Nevins, executive producer; Nancy Abraham, senior producer.

Article source: http://tv.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/arts/television/josh-foxs-gasland-part-ii-is-to-be-shown-on-hbo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

In Canada, Pipeline Remarks Stir Analysis

At issue are his remarks about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would send bitumen from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. The pipeline requires presidential approval and, for Canadians at least, has become a dominant political issue.

“Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interests,” Mr. Obama said at Georgetown University. “Our national interest would be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

The remarks were immediately parsed by supporters and opponents looking for any indication of the eventual decision.

Gillian McEachern, of Environmental Defence, which is based in Toronto, said that “no matter how you slice it and dice this, the decision will be based on science and the pipeline will be rejected.”

But many leaders of Canada’s oil and gas industry had a very different take, despite Ms. McEachern’s assertion that the president’s remarks had sent “shock waves” through the industry.

“Our reading is that this is a positive step in the process,” said Greg Stringham, the vice president for oil sands at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the trade group that includes the major oil sands operators.

Mr. Stringham and others in the industry, including Russ Girling, the president and chief executive of TransCanada, the company in Calgary behind the pipeline, base their optimism on a State Department report released this year that concluded that the $7 billion pipeline would not substantially increase the rate of oil sands development and, in turn, the carbon they emit. For Mr. Obama to say that the pipeline must not “significantly exacerbate” carbon pollution, they say, only helps their case.

Canadian environmentalists, however, take heart in a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency to the State Department challenging how it reached that conclusion.

Much attention in Canada focused on the president’s description of the Alberta energy reserves as the “tar sands.” In Canada, tar sands is a politically charged term, used mainly by environmentalists and avoided by politicians and even some environmentalists who want to avoid seeming excessively rhetorical.

The Globe and Mail provided a small history of the two terms in a front-page article about the speech, which said that the president had “used the language of the project’s critics.”

But Mr. Lemphers said he was not sure that Mr. Obama’s choice of words was filled with deep meaning. “Most Americans aren’t as sensitive as Canadians about the ideology behind those two terms,” he said.

Even Mr. Stringham said that when he first began his career, the oil industry used tar sands. Given that the sands are not mixed with oil or tar, which is an artificial substance, but bitumen, Mr. Stringham said the most accurate phrase might be “bituminous sands,” although he acknowledged that it was unlikely to catch on.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/business/energy-environment/in-canada-pipeline-remarks-stir-analysis.html?partner=rss&emc=rss