Promised Land Film Analysis

For the past twenty to thirty years, hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as fracking, has been the number one source of natural gas, oil, and energy in the United States. The process of fracking is that a well is built above the ground and then a drill digs several thousand feet deep into the ground to extract the oil and natural gas that is trapped inside of rock formations. Fracking is very controversial because of the cost of the process and the environmental “threats” that it poses. From methane emissions to earthquakes, fracking has been accused to be linked with several environmental issues. To prevent any environmental dangers, states place regulations and boundaries that energy companies have to follow in order to build a well and keep it up and running. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) also works with states to help regulate these wells. More importantly, fracking in the United States is very important and acts as a bridge to the future. While it may be argued that hydraulic fracturing is not beneficial to the economy and harmful to the environment, fracking in the United States should not be banned because fracking is not only imperative to the growth of jobs and the economy, but it also does not put the surrounding environment in danger.

Over the past decade oil and gas producers have increasingly used hydraulic fracturing also known as fracking to extract oil and gas from the earth. Most people believe fracking is a new process but it has been around for over 100 years. Modern day fracking began in the 1990’s when George P Mitchell created a new technique by combining fracking with horizontal drilling. Since then, U.S. oil and gas production has skyrocketed. But the “new” perception of fracking leads people to incorrectly believe that fracking is temporary and that it somehow harms the environment. The truth is fracking is a reasonable energy solution if oversight and safeguards are used. In the last ten years fracking has improved conditions in the U.S. in three

As the pace of shale gas drilling has accelerated in recent years, so have environmental concerns. Incidents such as a 2007 home explosion in Bainbridge, OH, the 2008 groundwater contamination on Wind River Indian Reservation in Pavilion, WY, and the 2008 chemical poisoning of an emergency room nurse in Durango, CO, have intensified the debate over regulation of fracking.10 As a result, new laws regulating fracking activities have

“In a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources, and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy, and peace (Nobel Peace Prize Medalist Maathai 2004).” A Canadian oil company that goes by TransCanada hopes to build an oil pipeline that would extend an enormous 1,200 miles onto an already gargantuan 2,600 mile long pipeline. Keystone XL represents just under a third of the entire Keystone project, and every other piece of pipe has been built and laid out. In fact, TransCanada 's pipeline system is already shipping hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil from the Canadian oil sands across the U.S. border -- and into Illinois (Diamond). The current proposal would take the pipeline on a journey all the way through to Texas. Extracting crude oil from oil sands would be enormously problematic for the environment as it causes the pumping of about 17% more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than standard crude oil extraction. Tar sand oil has levels of carbon dioxide emissions that are three to four times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive removal and refining processes (Friends of the Earth). The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would stimulate employment, the effects would be temporary and the whole scheme would produce a negative long term outcome. The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has caused

It is a fact that in Wyoming they are finding contamination in water tables as far away from fracking as forty miles. You tube videos of people igniting their tap water are numbered in the hundreds. These gas companies are poisoning our environment and destroying people’s entire way of life just to make money. Now most of us on some level are concerned about the environment, you don’t have to live in a tree and only eat organic fruits and vegetables to care about the future of earth. You just have to open your eyes and become comfortable to the fact that big corporations dictate government. These people live to make money, at all costs.

In this article, the Terry Wade and Ernest Scheyder discuss the protesters citing a treaty in order to occupy the land. Protestors are advocating for the rerouting of the pipeline on the grounds that further construction carries potential spills into drinking water and damage historical tribal sacred lands. The article cites the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, in which the protestors cited, and further discusses how treaty has not been taken seriously in the court of law. The article suggests that at one point the Energy Transfer Company planned to run the pipeline near Bismarck and far from the reservation, but instead decided to choose Standing Rock Sioux Land. This article is useful to point out a solution to the problem as well as the impact of protestors have on this

The Energy Transfer Partners wants to install the Dakota Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, but the Sioux tribe is fighting to stop the installation of the pipeline to preserve their culture and assert their right to the property. The Dakota Pipeline is an oil pipeline that would transport oil from North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa into Illinois. The Dakota Pipeline should not be installed because it disrespects the Native Americans’ culture and discriminates against The Sioux, a minority within the United States. The unjust treatment of Native Americans is due to the government’s disregard for Native American property rights and the government’s belief that they can simply take Native American property away because they are

Any decision about whether to revoke the pipeline’s permits in the area near the Standing Rock Sioux tribe will likely fall to the next President. Our new elected President Donald Trump has not claimed his side on the issue. However, Energy Transfer Partners company believes Trump will agree because he had business connections with the company and he agrees that the oil pipeline will bring to North Dakota. At the same time, environmental activists, “ a rejection of the Dakota Access pipeline would boost the “keep it in the ground” movement that calls for a halt to all new oil and natural gas infrastructure projects, which have ballooned in recent decades as new technologies let companies access reserves” (Worland, 2016). In other words, people are using this issue to address other issues America has been dealing with for decades such as more companies are constructing oil pipelines near in communities. People of America are complaining that the companies are taking advantage of their land, so they can create more money for themselves and not their community. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe wants others to know that companies are going too far to make more money and should think more about how it will affect the

Oil is one resource America relies heavily on. Oil has a negative impact on the environment and has long lasting affects. The Dakota Access Pipeline is a major controversial topic in the news. The Dakota Access Pipeline is being used to transport oil from North Dakota to Illinois. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is located where the pipeline will be passing through. The pipeline disrupts the lives of the Native Americans who live there. I believe that the Dakota Access Pipeline should not be built because of the affects on the environment and goes against the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Greider and Garkovich’s Landscapes: The Social Construction of Nature and the Environment discusses how the environment we live in is apart of our landscape. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sees their landscape as sacred and a place they need to protect.

Native Americans are being disrespected, harmed, and their homeland is being taken from them. Am I talking about events taken place centuries ago? No, because these unfortunate circumstances yet again are occurring right here, now, in the present. This horrid affair has a name: The Dakota Access Pipeline. This Pipeline is an oil transporting pipeline, which is funded by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, who have devised a plan for the pipeline to run through the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. However, unfortunately, this pipeline will run straight through the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, expressing their distress for the pipeline have said, that the pipeline will be “Destroying our burial sites, prayer sites, and culturally significant artifacts,” Arguments for the pipeline however have tried to counter this claim, trying to emphasize that “The pipeline wouldn 't just be an economic boon, it would also significantly decrease U.S. reliance on foreign oil”, and that the pipeline is estimated to produce “374.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.”, which could help the sinking oil economy. (Yan, 2016) However, despite the economical growth it could achieve, the Dakota Access Pipeline could have damaging environmental effects on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the areas surrounding.

In Canada, concerns over fracking is uneven across the country: some provinces ban it altogether while others support the practice, particularly Western Canada where there is “greater public tolerance of large energy projects in general.” Nevertheless, there is resistance and one of the significant examples is the recently decided Supreme Court case, originally launched by Jessica Ernst in 2007 against oil and energy firm Encana Corp, the Energy Resources Conservation Board, and Alberta Environment, under the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). A decade long process started when Encana intentionally fracked near her home and contaminated the water with dangerous levels of methane and other toxins. Ernst pushed her case to the Supreme Court to raise the

In December 2011, the federal Environmental Protection Agency concluded that fracking operations could be responsible for groundwater pollution.“Today’s methods make gas drilling a filthy business. You know it’s bad when nearby residents can light the water coming out of their tap on fire,” says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. What’s causing the fire is the methane from the drilling operations. A ProPublica investigation in 2009 revealed methane contamination was widespread in drinking water in areas around fracking operations in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. The presence of methane in drinking water in Dimock, Pa., had become the focal point for Josh Fox’s investigative documentary, Gasland, which received an Academy Award nomination in 2011 for Outstanding Documentary; Fox also received an Emmy for non-fiction directing. Fox’s interest in fracking intensified when a natural gas company offered $100,000 for mineral rights on property his family owned in Milanville, in the extreme northeast part of Pennsylvania, about 60 miles east of Dimock.

The Dakota Access Pipeline is a story that has been in the media for months, with a great deal of controversy surrounding it. Many have heard and seen the protests that are ongoing, in hopes to halt its construction. The most passionate opponents of this pipeline are the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, in North Dakota. While the pipeline does not cut through sacred land, it does pass under the Missouri River, a vital source of water for the tribe. This controversy is one with many sides and moreover, many misconceptions. The Dakota Access Pipeline is an ethically corrupt and potentially disastrous project that threatens the safety and wellbeing of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.

Energy production has been one of the most paramount forces that have influenced the actions of the United States as a country. Wars have been fought and treaties have been signed over the opportunity for oil. However, there has been a recent transition to cheaper and domestic energy sources of energy. Oklahoma has become a microcosm of these events that have occurred. With the discovery of natural gas reserves throughout the state, hydraulic fracturing has seen a boom in utilization. However, this has been largely detrimental for the state. Fracking should not be allowed in Oklahoma because of its environmental implications, its effect on Oklahoma’s future, and its impact on the people of Oklahoma.

The environment is a very important thing to take care of and can be very fragile. In the recent years humanity hasn’t been doing much to take care of the earth, and instead is destroying it in the name of progress. One of the harmful things that could really impact the environment is the North Dakota Pipeline. Some facts about the pipeline is that it is owned by Energy Transfer Partners who are the owners of Sunoco. Sunoco has had multiple onshore pipeline leaks and disasters that have devastated many environments. The planned pipeline is going to be 1,134 miles long and will cut through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois, by doing that it crosses fifty counties in total. Pipelines in general aren’t really the most reliable things