JessFilmAnnotation5

Annotation #5 10/14/11 //Spilt Estate// 710

1. //Split Estate// was directed by Debra Anderson in 2009.

2. The film focuses on the issues that arise when one person owns the surface rights to land while another person or corporation/business owns the mineral rights to that same land.

3. The argument is made by using specific examples where split estate legislature has hurt people and communities. They use very specific data and scientific evidence. One issue they run into is that health factors are very difficult to pin down and the companies that are fracking the land are not forced to disclose the chemical list that they use in their fracking processes and therefore the people cannot be accurately treated. This helps build emotion in the audience. The film is very emotional because the audience can relate to the people that are directly affected by this process.

4. The film draws out many different sustainability problems including political, legal, economic, medical and ecological issues.

5. The most compelling part of the film was the personal level that the film is able to achieve. Everyone dreams of owning land one day, and here these people are practically driven from their land by people who own what is underneath, and those who do not leave are pushed close to death due to health issues caused by the fracking processes. The film definitely helps to raise awareness of an issue of which, I believe, most people are ignorant. Another persuasive part of the film was when they begin to point out how natural gas and oil companies do not have to report to the laws and regulations that most people would assume were designed specifically to monitor them. The deep levels of political corruption that extends past party lines was astounding and shows a side of our government that stays mostly hidden.

6. I wanted to know more about the history of ‘split estate’ and how regional or national its regulations actually were. One of the weakest parts of their argument was their extreme focus on one small town in Colorado. To get people motivated to do something, it typically takes a fire burning on their doorstep, if not inside their house. Another issue is that health effects from such processes are difficult to determine causes except in large populations. We were never provided information as to the population of the towns affected or the numbers of people who were developing health issues and to what extent.

7. I think the film best addresses someone who is directly affected by this issue or someone in a state where they could easily be affected by fracking.

8. To enhance this film, I would have liked some more statistics and direct evidence. It was mentioned that both are hard to develop but if the issue is to reach out to people who are currently not directly affected by this issue, they need some stone cold proof in order for them to take action.

9. One of the most disturbing points in the film is the lack of regulations on natural gas and oil companies. An effective action would be to lobby for actual enforcement and regulations on these companies that work to protect people’s health and property rights. The government is the body that is supposed to protect the people and the people need to show the government that this industry is hurting them.

10. Spilt Estate legislature dates back to the 1800s. The Federal Government wanted to encourage people to move west so they created the Homestead Act. Almost forty years later they passed the Enlarged Homestead Act. Both were designed to encourage farmers to cultivate the land out west. However, in 1910, Congress began to realize that though the surface had agricultural value, the subsurface had mineral value and began holding onto and selling the mineral rights of land. In 2005, the Energy Policy Act was signed guaranteeing affordable supplies of energy. There are a lot of fine lines and small loop-holes built into this act that allow the mineral owner to be the dominant owner and if he acts out of accordance with the surface owner, he simply has to pay damages if the surface owner appeals in time. [] []