Submitted by Brian Matthews on

Comment from Ian Gasse.

Have read your blog on Gasland. What I would say in defence of the film is that the director tried several times to get interviews with the drilling companies and apart from one, which then actually withdrew from the interview, he got no responses. There was also a list in the credits at the end of all the companies and agencies who had refused to be interviewed. And it seemed to me that the lobbyists for the industry in the Congress committee, who might have provided some 'balance', ie alternative point of view, were appalling, condemning themselves without trying.

The first time I saw the film, like you, I felt it was probably too long and repetitive but on second and third viewings I was more impressed by it. It raises some very important questions and shows graphically, and literally explosively, some of the effects, on water supply, on human and animal health, and on the environment, and, apparently, the complete absence of any kind of protection for residents. Drilling companies seem to be able to acquire the rights to drilling on anybody's land – and the behaviour of Cheney in using his position of power to change the law and create risk-free opportunities for his capitalist friends beggars belief. The film was worth watching just to see and understand how US politics can be manipulated in the interests of profits against the people.

My negative comments about the film would be about the technical quality of some of the filming – rapid movements, out of focus shots, filming into the sun, peculiar filmic effects, etc. Having said that, it was no doubt a very low budget film.