Bensley+Annotations+6

David Bensley Annotation #6 15 Nov 2011 //Gasland // Word Count: 956

//Gasland // is a 2010 film written and directed by Josh Fox, a Pennsylvania landowner who received an offer from Halliburton to lease his land for the purpose of extracting natural gas.
 * 1. Title, director and release year? **

The film focuses on the issue of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for natural gas extraction and its unjustifiable exemption from such regulations as the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as the lack of regulation by government agencies, particularly the EPA.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

The film follows Josh Fox from when he received an offer from Halliburton to lease his land for fracking through his journey to find out more about the subject. First, he goes to the nearest town where drilling is occurring and interviews residents (Dimock, PA), who tell him how the tap water became undrinkable after Cabot Oil & Gas began fracking locally.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal? **

Mr. Fox then travels the country talking to residents about how natural gas fracking has affected their lives, particularly their water. Landowners across the United States are able to share stories of the consequences of living near natural gas wells.

The film has quite a bit of emotional appeal; it is impossible to watch a homeowner walk up to his kitchen sink labeled “Do Not Drink This Water” and light the water on fire without having an emotional reaction. It is a shameful problem.

There is a small amount of scientific information in the film; it contains a lot of information on what chemicals are in the gas companies’ pollution, but has little macro-scale data on its effects.

The film discusses political, legal, technological, and educational sustainability problems. The political and legal problems are derived from a lack of oversight by the government, lack of any major organization representing the people’s interests in these issues, and cross-pollination between government agencies and industry.
 * <span style="background-color: white; 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;">Some of the most compelling parts of the film were the segments showing people all over the country who were able to light their tap water on fire because of natural gas fracking. Similarly, the man who was able to form a solid film on top of a bucket of water by holding a torch to it because of the levels of glycol ethers demonstrated just how terrible water conditions have become.
 * <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;">The interview with John Fenton on his farm in Wyoming showed a different aspect to the problems of fracking, including how impossible it is to get clean water for cattle to drink. The cows he raises will be used for food someday, and the water they drink becomes of a part of America’s food supply. Meanwhile, his and many others’ property values have dropped greatly because of hydraulic fracturing.

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Finally, it was incredible to hear that the Dallas - Ft. Worth area has more air pollution resulting from natural gas fracking than from cars and trucks. It was good to gain some perspective on this topic.

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">There are no major parts of this film that stuck out as particularly “unconvincing” to me. However, I felt that the filmmakers could have spent more time developing the arguments against spraying water from pits into the air in order to evaporate it. I also felt that the film may have been a little longer than it needed to be for the content it contained.
 * <span style="background-color: white; 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;">The film seems to be best fit for viewing by the “Average Joe,” mostly because it was made by an Average Joe and has that sort of feel to it. It is especially valuable for anybody who lives in an area with natural gas reserves, and who may receive an offer similar to what was presented to Josh Fox.
 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">7. What audiences does the film best address? Why? **

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The film would have greatly benefitted from more data, first and foremost. I am not sure whether the data exists yet to tell the full story of natural gas fracking, but the first film that does have strong data to flesh out this argument will be very important.
 * <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 does not suggest much in the way of corrective action, other than a quick segment on the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, which if passed would remove many of the regulatory exemptions granted to hydraulic fracturing operations.
 * <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 the FRAC Act, specifically what action it aimed to take, what it was intended to solve, and what its current legislative status was. I found that the bill was aimed only at removing exemptions under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and no other exemptions. It also required only that a list of chemicals in the fracking fluid be given to administrators, but that the formulas and specific ratios of chemicals need not be identified if they are proprietary ( []), unless in an emergency situation. Currently, the bill has not been acted upon in Congress ([]).
 * <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.) **