Bens+Film+Annotation+7

Ben Clemence, Annotation #7 Split Estate Word Count: 919


 * Title**: Split Estate
 * Director**: Debra Anderson
 * Released**: August 2009


 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The central argument of this focuses on the issue of a split estate. A split estate is a situation in which one person can own the surface rights to the land while someone else can own the mineral rights to that same land. This other owner is often gas drilling companies that are interested in recovering natural gas from underground.


 * How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The documentary takes you to the homes of many individuals who have been specifically affected by this issue of a split estate. They are living on land that they do not own the mineral rights to so a company has come in and started drilling literally right next to their home. The only restriction as to how close it can be is that the drilling rig cannot have the potential to hit their house if it were to fall. To back up the health concerns they bring in a lot of scientific evidence to back up their claims. The film definitely has emotional appeal when you see how affected the families they interview are and how much the process of drilling for natural gas has hurt them.


 * What sustainability problem does the film draw out?**

The sustainability problem brought out in this film touches on many different areas, politics and legal issues, health and environmental, and informational. The companies that are drilling are not being held responsible for their actions by people that have the power to make changes. Politicians should be representing the people who want to get rid of the drilling in their area and not looking out for the best interests of the company. People also need to be more informed about the current issues. There needs to be more awareness of the issue of fracking and its affects. This film serves as a great educational tool but it requires people watching it.


 * What parts of the film do you find more persuasive and compelling? Why?**

There was one segment about a husband and wife moving into their dream home out in Colorado. Then a pad was put in nearby that drilled for natural gas. They explained the story of how the wife’s health deteriorated from that point one and when the film was produced she was very, very sick and needed constant attention from her husband. The effects of the drilling being so close to her home were so clear, and the husband could tell the viewers how it happened and the changes he saw in their water.


 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

There was a short discussion about how many times the chemicals used for fracking are proprietary and thus not available to the public. Maybe it is just that I refuse to believe that no one has been able to get this information or perform their own tests but there needed to be more talk about specific effects of the actual chemicals in the fracking fluid.

This film best addresses those that are close to areas where natural gas drilling is taking place or scheduled to take place but it is also good for the general public to be aware. The ability to distance ourselves from these issues is too easy and this film is good way to put the issue right in someone’s face and make them realize how bad it is.
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**


 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

I would have liked to see more discussion of far reaching effects of the fracking. There was a good discussion of the effects that are felt by families living near drilling sites but not much that would make others outside of those areas want to get involved. This would have shown how we can’t separate ourselves from these issues like so many people seem to do.


 * What kinds of actions and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggests corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

The film points out how these companies are not being held responsible by the government for the damage they have caused both to humans and the environment. Stricter regulations need to be put on these companies that are drilling right next to people’s homes and contaminated the ground they are drilling into. To make these happen individuals need to let their politicians know that they need these companies to leave or come up with safer drilling practices and that the current mode of operation is unacceptable.


 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?**

I was compelled to see what actions have taken place and what groups are in place and are fighting this issue. I came across the oil and gas accountability project on the split estate webpage under resources. The goal of the group is to, “work with tribal, urban and rural communities to protect their homes and the environment from the devastating impacts of oil and gas development.” The latest post talked about the Pit in New Mexico and how it was being put up against the oil and gas drilling companies in court.

References "2011 Press Release." Earthworks. Earthworks, n.d. Web. 6 Nov 2011. .