"It is happening all across America-rural landowners wake up one day to find a lucrative offer from an energy company wanting to lease their property. Reason? The company hopes to tap into a reservoir dubbed the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas." Halliburton developed a way to get the gas out of the ground-a hydraulic drilling process called "fracking"-and suddenly America finds itself on the precipice of becoming an energy superpower. " Written by Sundance Film Festival
Response to Classmates' Responses:
ReplyDeleteDespite not watching this film, it became evident to me through reading my classmates' responses that once again, the policies and behavior displayed by the powerful severely restrict and jeopardize the well-being of the powerless. From what I have gathered, when gas is available, it is craved by the government and the natural gas drillers. Therefore, although the drillers may offer a lot of money for the land that people's homes are on, it is more of an order than an offer. Because others around you will be selling their land, drilling will begin near your home. Wonderful, you can keep your home and your land; but the drilling may cause life-threatening, harmful chemical effects on you. Essentially, Gasland paints the picture that the large drilling companies force these innocent civilians into a lose-lose situation.
Even though I may not be an environmentalist, it is disheartening to discover that gas companies are withholding certain chemical information that pertains to the fracking process, which then leads to the destruction of the planet. Furthermore, it is no surprise that gas companies use the fine print in environmental laws to their advantage, since food companies such as Tyson and Perdue do exactly the same. As for the polluted water situation, I wonder how long the gas companies will be able to get away with contaminating the most essential element to maintain human life. It appears that the gas companies are very similar to the food companies who manipulate our nation’s laws to generate more profit for their company, without taking into consideration human lives.
ReplyDeleteHow there can be a “clean water act” and how a man can light his natural gas-filled water on fire clearly is a clear conflict, which highlights the ignorance of regulations by major gas companies. They just avoid all laws of environmental protection and expect to get away with it when the time comes to answer for what they had done. It makes me sick to think that these companies think they can do whatever they want because they make such large amounts of money
ReplyDeleteOne of the global society's greatest issues is the energy crisis and finding sources of energy. Though scientists have warned about the rapidly depleting oil and natural gas supply and search for new sources of energy, there are still arguments over how to harness and collect the resources we now have available. As Gasland points out, there is high interest in the natural gas depot in the mid-Atlantic states, such as New York and West Virginia. One way to collect natural gas is by a process called fracking, which pumps chemicals into the ground, which then in some cases contaminates the surrounding watershed. Though many steps have been taken by the government to protect the environment, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 allowed for fracking to be instituted as a means of harnessing natural gas. For this reason, I disliked the actions the government took towards harnessing energy sources.
ReplyDeleteThe government took the easy route rather than looking for a safer, less harmful means of extracting the gas, placing the economic success of energy over the safety of the environment and the people in the surrounding area. Fracking leads to contaminated water, which can make the tap water of surrounding states, such as New York, toxic to those who drink it. The toxic water leads to illness and damages the environment which it runs through. The government allowed fracking, however, because it is a relatively cheap and easy way to collect natural gas, which in turn relates to greater economic success. The government should instead take the time to research safer ways to harness the energy we have on our soil. I believe that it is peril to use the resources we have in our country and on our continent to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and resources, however we must do so in a responsible manner, or we risk irreversibly damaging our environment and our people.
There is much to dislike about the actions of the natural gas companies in the documentary, Gasland. In fact the sole favorable thing they have done is provide a few victims with clean water. As for what they have done that I dislike, that list would go on for days.
ReplyDeleteAmong the actions of the gas companies I dislike, was the blatant disregard for the environment shown by the higher ups in the corporations. They knew what effect the drilling would have on the environment; had they not they would not have gone through the effort of seeking exemption from dozens of environmental protection laws. Their conscious decision not to disclose the full list of chemicals used in the fracking process further exemplifies the fact that they are fully aware of what toll their actions will have upon the environment.
Perhaps the worst offense by the gas companies is how they manipulate the people who live next to the gas wells. They are the people who are baring the full negative effects on their local environments that have resulted from fracking. For the most part, it appeared as if the corporations chose to drill in areas where the majority of residents were blue collar workers, who were not in a position to look into what effect fracking would have on their homes. Many of them, also, were not in a position to understand what rights they signed over to the gas companies when they sold parts of their land.
It is striking, though, how those who are responsible for such hardships continue to ignore what is occurring. Confronted with the contaminated water the claim that it is fine, yet refuse to drink. They have distanced themselves from the problems they have created. They live in areas far from the toxics they have unleashed into the Earth. And for them, as long as the gas an money keeps flowing, they will not bat an eyelash.
Student response:
ReplyDeleteCompanies using their connections to government power to avoid various laws are a societal byproduct of big business that exists today. Unfortunately even in our own country that applies, the idea of specifically targeting areas where blue-collar residence will comply is scary. The possibility that what is being searched for or what is being put in the ground could contaminate my water supply. The disassociation from these areas being fracked by companies shows how dangerous it can be. If the company leaders are running from the fracking site why do they expect residence of the area to be willing to let them frack on their land.
Response to Student Responses:
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have gathered from the student commentaries on the film Gasland, it sounds like it is somewhat similar to A Crude Awakening. The major difference seems to lie, however, in the what aspect of oil extraction is the focus of Gasland, which seems to be environmental, as opposed to A Crude Awakening’s more economic approach. I can definitely agree that more care ought to be put into the environmental ramifications of extracting oil. There may even be a greater economic argument for doing so, as it most certainly costs money to repair the damages that we have inflicted upon the environment. This film certainly grants credibility to the phrase “Laziness is the mother of all problems”.
Gasland Response.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary Gasland seems to be similar to Enron video because the natural gas companies don’t take into consideration public health and opinion. The companies only focus on how to increase their profits. Natural Gas is already a limited and dangerous natural resource to use because like oil it can run out at any moment while demand is at the highest it’s ever been. There needs to be a solution to the problem of natural resources and a “Transition Fuel” needs to be created in order to accommodate for this high demand.
Student Response
ReplyDeleteGasland: From other student writings I can tell that there is a very large problem with as companies in the United States, especially with their ability to basically sicken people near their drilling's, without having any repercussion towards them. It is very obvious that the gas drilling companies in America have to much power, with their ability to drill nearly anywhere they want if they can meet the price of those living in that area, even if it means the inhabitants get very sick or die from the noxious gasses produced from the drilling or gas.
Gasland is doicumentry about the energy crisis, corporate lies, government “corruption” and the environment. The documentary begins with Josh Fox attempting to figure out whether or not to sell his family's home, which sits on a shale gas bed, to a gas company. He starts to investigate and soon finds that hydraulic fracturing, the process of extracting natural gas, is actually extremely harmful to supplies of fresh water belonging to people who have property near gas wells. In several scenes of the movie, Fox observes that he is able to light water on fire due to the fact that there is a significant quantity of natural gas in the water. Fox travels across the country investigating and lighting water on fire. He also discusses how the government and natural gas lobbyists changed the Clean Water Act to exempt toxic chemicals used in “Frakking” from regulation. This story outrages me. There has to be a better “transition fuel” that is easier and safer to obtain than natural gas. I am astounded at how people can just ignore the environment and peoples health in decisions that affect ventures that can make them money.
ReplyDeleteI was even more enraged when I saw advocates of the gas companies attempt to defend the companies action during the senate subcommittee at the end of the document, they claimed that frakking had no significant impact on the environment when there were many studies that proved that frakking had and effect. In one scene, some idiot attributed harmful effects to telephone poles. Outrageous.--Nevin Zheng *Must change Google settings.
From other peoples posts Gasland seems to be about the effects that oil production, and pumping have upon nature. This is not new information, but what is most important is that it is so dangerous for the human population, and that sometime in the future people could die because of the chemicals that are thrown into the ground. The oil companies are no longer looking into the long term they want to meet demand now, and it does not matter who is hurt. Unfortunately this is a reality that the largest consumer in the world of oil, the U.S., has to confront before it is too late and the life of the ground and water supply are sucked away with the oil.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that every documentary or movie that I watched for this assignment had the same motif of making money no matter who or what it harms in the process. The acts described in "Gasland" are no different to this motif, only this time the gas companies were directly harming the natural environment, which indirectly harms the people that live on and around these environments.
ReplyDeleteWhat surprised me in this documentary is how easily people will just blindly give up the rights of their land to these gas companies unaware of what is in the contracts they are signing or what rights they are giving away. Clearly these companies just target hard working Americans who are just trying to make a suitable living and could use the extra cash that the gas companies are offering. This is just another example of a corporation that takes advantage of people with no regard for the harm that it may cause them.
I always knew that this kind of behavior was going on because how else would gas companies acquire land to use. Clearly they should consider the pros and cons of doing this kind of business because the harmful outcomes to be considered here outweigh the benefits to the companies. This kind of unchecked aggression is rampant in today's society and unfortunately will continue until someone steps in to stop it.
In response to John Maffeo on Gasland,
ReplyDeleteYou talk about hydraulic fracturing is a technique to drill natural gas, which poisons water the public use. So, basically, the drilling companies are poisoning the public. Would that not be illegal activity, especially if people are dying? Does Jon Fox talk about court cases against the drilling by the suffering public? Unless the people had signed a contract of sort allowed the drilling companies to drill in their area, I find it weird that there has not been more public uprise about his. What is allowing these companies not stop immediately for public endangerment?
The documentary Gasland profiles the life of a man named Josh Fox who first started his studies when he was offered money by an oil company to drill on his property. His exploration took him many places and opened him up to many mew experiences. Like anyone who watched this film the most shocking footage was that of people tap water being lit on fire. While watching this it made me curious how these oil companies could simply get away with this contamination. The oil corporations were able to do this by the passage of the Halliburton loophole which allowed the oil companies to break laws including, the clean air act, the clean water act and many other environmental restrictions. I realize that gas is needed to fuel many things that society runs on, but when is enough, enough the fact that many households have been drinking contaminated water for years, and many towns have been prone to contaminates in the air that will affect the health of many citizens.
ReplyDeleteMike I found your summary to be quite interesting. I believe that your question of when is enough, enough calls on a great point that at what costs are we willing to pay for our societal's liquid Gold. I think that too often Americans are willing to make our environment take the hit for our laziness.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gasland. I enjoyed reading your review of Gasland it seems to be a very informational video on the effects of hydraulic fracturing. It is amazing how companies can continue drilling knowing the effects they are causing on the surrounding communities. When I was doing community service in West Virginia we heard about stories of people lighting a match over their sink and seeing a flame. The communities surrounding these drilling projects are typically not so well off to begin with, and now on top of that their water is unusable. I agree it is quite comical that natural gas producers would not even drink the water that they deemed drinkable. It's sad to see the complete disregard of the communities health and safety in order to make money.
In Gasland, the narrator, John Fox, reveals the devastating effects of the practice of hydraulic fracturing on the land and its inhabitants. A method of drilling for natural gas, hydraulic fracturing uses 596 known chemicals, many of which are harmful to people and animals. Traveling from Arkansas to New Mexico, Fox observes and documentes the damage caused by this drilling technique. From people dying of cancer to flammable tap water, the immediate consequences of hydraulic fracturing are startling. The future ramifications, however, are much more alarming. As Fox notes, the water supply of New York City could be tainted, as well as those in Europe and in North Africa.
ReplyDeleteTo me, one of the most striking features of Fox’s documentary is his immediate decision to interview the heads of the natural gas companies. Rather than present a one-sided view of the situation (as one company representative alleges he does), Fox gives all sides a chance to defend their position. Although the corporations do not accept this opportunity, I am still impressed that Fox makes the effort to fairly evaluate the situation. Another aspect of Fox’s work that impressed me was his consideration of the merits of natural gas. In addition to showing the dangers of drilling, Fox also proves that the emissions produced by drilling with hydraulic fracturing are, at least in some areas, equal to those produced by cars. Instead of demanding a stop to drilling altogether, Fox merely asks that a more environmentally conscious technique be developed. A realistic thinker, Fox remains focused on his objective while keeping the bigger picture in mind.
Finally, I found that the defenses offered by many of the natural gas producers were almost laughable. The idea that any corporation would provide a source of water to those whose water is safe is ludicrous, and the fact that they will not drink the water that they declare safe is humorous to the viewer, but not so to those affected. The behavior of politicians, although admittedly unsurprising, also is intolerable, as they continue to ignore the problem at the urging of lobbyists. Ultimately, the scope of this calamity caused by supposedly clean energy amazed me, and I appreciate Fox’s effort to show us what we have to lose.
In Gasland, the narrator, John Fox, reveals the devastating effects of the practice of hydraulic fracturing on the land and its inhabitants. A method of drilling for natural gas, hydraulic fracturing uses 596 known chemicals, many of which are harmful to people and animals. Traveling from Arkansas to New Mexico, Fox observes and documentes the damage caused by this drilling technique. From people dying of cancer to flammable tap water, the immediate consequences of hydraulic fracturing are startling. The future ramifications, however, are much more alarming. As Fox notes, the water supply of New York City could be tainted, as well as those in Europe and in North Africa.
ReplyDeleteTo me, one of the most striking features of Fox’s documentary is his immediate decision to interview the heads of the natural gas companies. Rather than present a one-sided view of the situation (as one company representative alleges he does), Fox gives all sides a chance to defend their position. Although the corporations do not accept this opportunity, I am still impressed that Fox makes the effort to fairly evaluate the situation. Another aspect of Fox’s work that impressed me was his consideration of the merits of natural gas. In addition to showing the dangers of drilling, Fox also proves that the emissions produced by drilling with hydraulic fracturing are, at least in some areas, equal to those produced by cars. Instead of demanding a stop to drilling altogether, Fox merely asks that a more environmentally conscious technique be developed. A realistic thinker, Fox remains focused on his objective while keeping the bigger picture in mind.
Finally, I found that the defenses offered by many of the natural gas producers were almost laughable. The idea that any corporation would provide a source of water to those whose water is safe is ludicrous, and the fact that they will not drink the water that they declare safe is humorous to the viewer, but not so to those affected. The behavior of politicians, although admittedly unsurprising, also is intolerable, as they continue to ignore the problem at the urging of lobbyists. Ultimately, the scope of this calamity caused by supposedly clean energy amazed me, and I appreciate Fox’s effort to show us what we have to lose.