NickLawFilmAnnotations5

Nicholas Lawrence Split Estate

1. Split Estate, Debra Wilson, 2009

2. The central argument of the film is that drilling for oil and natural gas and using the method of fracking is harmful to environment and poses great health risks to those that live near drilling sites. The film ties in social oppression and social injustice with the wants of the corporation trumping the rights of the people.

3. The narrative of the film focuses on several towns in Colorado, where the natural oil and gas drilling is extensive. At first I didn’t feel much emotional attachment to the first couple that was shown in the film. But, the film showed case after case of people being injured by this drilling with no accountability to the drilling companies. The documentary very quickly began to show the oppression and stripping of rights the affected communities had. These people were drinking and bathing in polluted water and could nothing to solve the problem but move. As for scientific evidence presented, there wasn’t much. But it isn’t necessarily needed or their fault. For one the chemicals used in drilling fluids is a guarded secret. Second instead they didn’t need to list the chemicals found in the surrounding water of a drill site. Just showing the evaporating pits, or the tap water or the clear health problems of the surrounding people of a drill site was enough evidence.

4. This film ties in several sustainability problems: corporate responsibility, pollution, social injustice and corporate influence.

5. The first image that comes to mind is the river being lit on fire. One can clearly see the connection between pumping the fracking fluid underground and having flammable gas bubble up through a nearby stream. Being able to light a flame from the gas escaping from a stream is a very visible and compelling picture of pollution. Having flammable chemicals in the air or water is not healthy. The man in the home video of the bubbling river was able to stick a pipe in the ground and light 1ft. constant flame. Another compelling piece of evidence was the woman who the host of health problems including the speech impediment. She had to shuffle around and her speech was very unusual. This is a very emotional scene and clearly demonstrates the negative health effects of living near these sites.

6. I didn’t find anything unconvincing really. If anything the first couple that was shown I didn’t really find convincing. They didn’t seem to be suffering any health effects. If anything it seemed they were just worried about the aesthetics of their land. However watching the rest of the film put their plight in context and I find their story more compelling.

7. This film best addresses people: who live in Colorado, live in the flyover states/Midwest, who are environmentally conscious, who care social injustice and are living in an area that might see natural gas and oil drilling. These are all the people that could have natural gas and oil drilling impact their lives.

8. I don’t think very much could be added to enhance the environmental quality of this video. They very clearly presented the affects the sites have on human lives and the pollution caused by drilling. However they could present more information on how the drilling affects wild animals. Such affects weren’t really mentioned in the film. But this is done intentionally because showing how something hurts humans rather than animals is ultimately more convincing in the end. So enhancing its environmental quality could very well detract from its emotional appeal and ability to convince.

9. There weren’t many courses of action presented by the film. It really is the case the interests of the big business and government trump anyone who gets in the way. I mean even here in New York a yearlong moratorium was achieved but that was it. It remains to be seen whether New York can stop fracking from spreading into its borders. The only course of action I can think of to take is to try and rally public support to protest natural gas and oil drilling. Anything less than massive public pressure is most likely not going to work. Any wronged individual probably doesn’t have the time or money to fight the oil companies by taking them to court. The best chance of success I see in a massive protest aimed at the governor of the state to ban fracking. 10. []

This site gave a bit more info on the DEC’s input to fracking in New York State and gave a bit more information on the economic incentives of fracking

[]

This is the only website I could find on banning fracking in Massachusetts, doesn’t look very promising