Does the documentary ‘Gasland’ illustrate a  ‘dead canary in the mine’?: Questions for New Zealand
The documentary ‘Gasland’ raises questions concerning  the practices and hazards of fracking. Fracking is a process that injects huge quantities of chemicals under pressure to release underground gas reserves for recovery by natural gas companies. Which is more valuable? Gas to fuel your industry and heat your homes? … or water and land to grow your food, feed your animals, and … drink! How do you balance the long-term risks and returns?
 
The story that ‘Gasland’ reveals is what I would expect to see in a 19th century Third-world country exploited by colonialism…. However, for a first world country, the United States, to conduct these practices on its own people and environment in the 21st century is extraordinary.
 
I suspect in terms of both economic value and environmental risk it would have been superior to build nuclear power stations than the fracking-based gas retrieval systems illustrated in the movie ‘Gasland’. I would hazard a guess that even taking the risk of building outdated Chernobyl-style nuclear stations would be the better deal than fracking-based gas gas retrieval. Just a guess, but worth doing the calculations! … Of course, there are safer and cheaper nuclear and solar energy alternatives than a Chernobyl-style reactor.
 
The petroleum industry response to the issues raised in ‘Gasland’

Energy in Depth (EID) is a key lobby groups that supports fracking on the basis of ‘jobs, revenue, opportunity’. Perhaps it’s a lobby group similar to those established to raise doubt about the early warning signals concerning the dangers of asbestos, smoking, and global climate change. The logos on the website suggest that EID is supported by the IPAA, the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Energy In Depth. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.energyindepth.org/
 
The response of the director of ‘Gasland’ to the claims of Energy in Depth

In response to “The REAL Promised land” the director of Gasland, Josh Fox, states “It is truly unfortunate that the gas-drilling industry continues to deny what is so obvious to Americans living in gaslands across the nation instead of taking responsibility for the damage they are causing. I am issuing the following point-by-point rebuttal of their claims, not because I feel obligated to address what are clearly falsehoods and smear tactics, but to show the depth of the industry’s assault on the truth and to point out their obfuscations, misleading spin on information, and attempts to shut down questions about their practices.” Fox, J. (n.d.). Affirming Gasland. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/affirming-gasland
 
Fracking in New Zealand: ‘no worries’ - a self-regulating ‘fracking’ industry
(Quoted from: Davison and Shuttleworth, 2012)

Fracking should not be banned in New Zealand but oversight and regulation of the industry must be improved as the practice increases, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has found.

An interim report by commissioner Jan Wright concluded that the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing, known as “fracking”, could be done safely in New Zealand if well-managed.

But the energy industry had not yet gained the trust of the public by showing it had used world’s best practice, and the regulation which governed it could be too light-handed.

“During the course of this investigation I have come to a similar conclusion to the [British] Royal Society which is that fracking is safe if it is properly regulated and managed,” Dr Wright said.

“However I have significant concerns about how fragmented and complicated the regulatory environment for fracking is and about how these rules are being applied.”
….
 
New Zealand Prime Minister  John Key said he was not concerned the industry was self-regulating at present. He said it was critically important to go ahead with mining and fracking. “Without fracking I suspect it would hold New Zealand back.”
 

Does the documentary ‘Gasland’ illustrate a  ‘dead canary in the mine’?

From the EID site we see examples of how landscapes under which fracking for gas has been applied can be restored to photogenically-attractive farmscapes, and that local communities have benefted from the jobs and sponsorship of gas recovery companies. Perhaps in 90 per cent, 95 per cent, 99 per cent of cases the fracking and recovery technology works according to plan…. and everything can be remediated above and below ground. But what is the probability that freshwater reservoirs, groundwater wells, residue pits, and atmosphere are contaminated? Who pays the cost of remediation? What are the guarantees that the firm that promised to remediate or insure accidental contaminations doesn’t file for bankruptcy. Or that legislation limits the liability of the firms for remediation? … Think Cave Creek, the Rena Wreck, the BP Gulf of Mexico Oil spill. And, more broadly, the billion dollar disaster arising from NZ’s ‘leaky building’ situation (Morton, 2013; Allen, 2012). To what extent will alterations to the New Zealand Resource Management Act, and the adoption by New Zealand of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) favour inadequate ‘industry self-regulation’? Will there be adequate trust funds, insurance funds, and emergency response support services established and funded by the industry to respond to accidents and claims? 

Perhaps the documentary ‘Gasland’ presents a few examples of worst-case scenarios, and the EID site a few examples of ‘best-case’ scenarios. One might hardly expect anything else! I conclude that ‘Gasland’ does present some ‘dead canaries in the mine’ that warn us that some of the technical, business, and environmental practices by fracking-based gas recovery companies are NOT appropriate world-best industry standard. Accordingly, I express concern that the regulatory environment for fracking-based gas recovery must be designed to optimise the balance between long-term risks and returns for both the companies, the environment, and regional stakeholders. It is too easy to discard the non-zero risk to the environment by arguing that ‘jobs, opportunity and revenue’ are more important than the health of our people, our livestock, our food-chain, and water supplies. If some of that ‘revenue’ was banked in a secure trust fund AHEAD of probable future environmental impacts, perhaps I would endorse more strongly changes to the Resource Management Act and the adoption of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I do not consider it ethical or just that the taxpayer, and individual property owners should cover the risk of potentially faulty legislation and potentially ‘cowboy’ industry operators.

Sources
Allen, F. E. (2012, April 20). The Gulf Spill: BP Still Doesn’t Get It. Forbes. Retrieved March 3, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/04/20/the-gulf-spill-bp-still-doesnt-get-it/

Davison, I., & Shuttleworth, K. (2012, November 27). No need for fracking ban in New Zealand - Commissioner. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10850290

Energy In Depth (EID). (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.energyindepth.org/

Fox, J. (2010). GASLAND Trailer 2010. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Fox, J. (n.d.). Affirming Gasland. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/affirming-gasland

Morton, J. (2013, February 19). Iwi want Rena wreck removed. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10866234