Bens+Film+Annotation+9

Ben Clemence, Annotation #9 Gasland Word Count: 959


 * Title**: Gasland
 * Director**: Josh Fox
 * Released**: 2010


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

The argument focuses on the destructive effects of the techniques used for drilling for natural gas, specifically hydraulic fracking. Fracking has poisoned the groundwater supply in many areas and lead to serious illnesses in many cases.


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

The film is another narrative documentary in which the journalist, Josh Fox, receives an offer from a natural gas company for $100,000 to allow them to drill for gas on his family’s land in Pennsylvania. By investigating other people who have direct experience with drilling and fracking in their local area he starts to build a collection of stories of all the negative effects. In addition there are also interviews with experts in the field that provide the scientific background to the symptoms that the individuals are now suffering from since allowing the gas companies in. There is a lot of emotional appeal in this film as it documents families and how much they have struggled living near an area that gas is drilled for and that there suffering ends when they leave that area.


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

This film touches on many sustainability problems in categories such as ecological, legal, and cultural. The chemicals from fracking are all proprietary information so the lists are not made public as to what is being pumped into the ground. Most of that fluid is not recovered and instead is leached into the water table, along with natural gas. There was enough gas in one family’s water to be able to light their tap water on fire. Another issue is that families do not realize what they are accepting when they take the money from the gas companies to allow them to drill. There needs to a bigger push to educate residents of locations where natural gas is prevalent to the dangers of drilling so that they can decline offers from the gas drilling companies such as Halliburton. There also needs to be more responsibility put on the companies that are doing this drilling. They are aware of their bad practices but no one seems to be holding them to a higher standard which is just empowering them to continue drilling in new locations.


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

The scene that showed the family that was able to light their tap water on fire was very compelling. The fact that there are high enough levels of natural gas in their water to light it on fire is very concerning. Not only because of the potential health implications but also for fear of that gas collecting and exploding inside their house. That is a very immediate threat that seems more likely than I would be comfortable.


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

There were many personal accounts of the gas companies coming in and the effects that they companies had on the people living nearby which was very compelling. The part that I was not convinced by was the fact that these were all the most extreme cases it seemed. I would have liked to see more far reaching affects. To me it was clear that living 250ft from a drilling site is very unsafe but what about the town down the road, or the city 50 miles away.


 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

This film best addresses the general public in the US because everyone should have a stake in this issue. Specifically those that should watch this are landowners who are receiving offers from gas companies. Many people see natural gas as the energy supply of the future for cars and they would certainly benefit from hearing this perspective of natural gas recovery.


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

In many of the films, they will offer the company a chance to talk about its practices and their responses to allegations about the negative effects drilling has. This is typically not added to allow the company to defend itself but instead to show how effective companies can cover up these issues as if they never happened.


 * 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.**

In the movie there were not too many things that were suggested as potential solutions. Clearly an alternative way to recover natural gas from the ground is needed or we need to find another source of energy. To make this happen individuals need to speak out and stories like the one shown in this film need to be heard.


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

This is an issue that is very close to us here at RPI because the gas companies have started targeting areas in New York for drilling so I wanted to find out more about what efforts have been made to stop them. I knew about the “Don’t Frack with NY” group so I looked more into them. On their website was a story about how over 250 health professionals have urged Governor Cuomo “not to frack with our health.” They expressed their health concerns for allowing these companies to come in and drill. Now is the time to stop them, not once they have already settled themselves in and are drilling.

References Don't Frack With NY. First Last. New York: RiverKeeper, 2011. Web. 4 Nov 2011. .