Bensley+Annotations+8

David Bensley Annotation #8 14 Nov 2011 //Split Estate // Word Count: 1,080

//Split Estate // is a 2009 film produced and directed by Debra Anderson.
 * 1. Title, director and release year? **

 **2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?** //Split Estate // is a film that documents and criticizes the idea of a ‘split estate’—where the landowners only truly own the surface of the land, but the mineral rights can be owned by another entity. This is a situation where organizations have a legal right to extract minerals from someone else’s land, and can often negatively affect the residents, without any compensation and without the residents having any say in whether and/or how the extraction occurs. The film focuses on these negative effects, particularly groundwater contamination.

 **3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**  The narrative begins with clips from interviews with several land owners in Colorado and New Mexico stating the issues that they have had with oil and gas companies extracting resources near their land, and how little say they have had in the process. The film continues on with longer segments featuring one family-owned farm at a time, including the Bell and Armenta families.

The film draws more of its power from emotional appeal than hard data; the families interviewed are anecdotal evidence of a serious problem, but not a lot of scientific data is given.

Some of the scientific data, such as given during the interview with Dr. Theo Colborn, is very important to the story, however. She has identified nearly 200 chemicals used as fracking proppants, 90% of which can be associated with adverse health effects, including cancer, birth defects, and brain damage.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?** <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The film mainly discusses political, legal, technological, and ecological sustainability problems. Legally and politically, there are issues with land use and regulations. For example, 85% of Colorado land’s mineral rights are privately owned and companies can effectively drill wherever they choose, it seems. The EPA’s lack of strict regulation and weak enforcement mean, for example, that very little of the chemicals used in fracking are ever reported and evaluated in terms of groundwater contamination. Most glaringly, it is incredible that hydraulic fracking for natural gas is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Air Act, among others.

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Technologically and ecologically, it seems that we have developed the ability to fracture the Earth and create serious problems without developing the ability to reverse or even mitigate them. Natural gas fracking pollutes waterways with benzene, and the only technological “solution” to the problem is to roil the water so that the benzene gets in the air instead of the water.

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">One part of the film that I found compelling near the beginning was during the interview with Carol Bell, when she discussed the spill of liquid paraffin on her farm. They were forced to burn a portion of their own land, and had absolutely no power to prevent such things from happening.
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Another strong point of the movie was the interview with an employee of ConocoPhillips and their plans for growth throughout Colorado and New Mexico; it was stunning to see how many wells were being drilled and how obvious the aesthetic damage the wells were doing was.

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The portions of the film with Dr. Colburn were particularly persuasive, because she was able to provide scientific insight into the issues, which is valuable to me as a science-minded person with training as an engineer.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?** <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I was not convinced by the portions of the film toward the end, when it showed various people specking before government committees, and showed the Governor of Colorado announcing a change in the makeup of a regulatory committee. It seems that while some voices speaking against the special interests of oil and gas are being heard, it is still far from where it should be. Changing the makeup of the committee seems like a way of plugging a single hole in a collapsing dam and calling it fixed.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The film is clearly directed at American audiences, particularly adults. Despite the focus on Colorado and New Mexico, it is not just aimed at people in that region; it seems that most states, if not all states, have natural gas and oil drilling operations. More specifically, the film speaks to landowners to whom such ‘split estate’ problems may happen. It may also be useful for those in industry to see things from the point of view that //Split Estate// takes, and consider all of the consequences of their actions.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">On a personal level, I was certainly impacted toward the end of the film when, after examining the health impacts of drinking fracking-affected water, it was mentioned that fracking may soon occur in the region in upstate New York where New York City drinking water comes from.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The film’s weakest point was a lack of discussion of the solutions to the problems associated with oil and gas drilling. It is very strong in the sense of informing the audience of problems, but falls short in directing a way forward.
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The film has implied directions to speak publicly about adverse effects felt by people who are impacted by oil and gas operations, and to contact representatives in government to help solve these problems. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Another thing that I think is essential but was not discussed much in the film is the idea of class action lawsuits.
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. **

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I was interested in finding out more about mineral rights after watching this film. First, I wanted to see what oil and gas fields existed in New York. I found that shale gas fields exist throughout southern New York State, including my home county ( []). I also found, somewhat surprisingly, that my hometown has moved to ban fracking ([]).
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) **