UTHDTH Ch:3&4 Josh Boen, Alex Munson

1. Discuss with examples why the author compares leasing for fracking is like a lottery for
many landowners.
The author compares leasing and fracking to the lottery because the results are varied and while a
certain few become “shallionaires” very few actually turn a profit that is better than the
destruction that takes place on their land. One example of how one could “win” the fracking
lottery is the case of George Hagemeyer. George was one who originally seemed to get the short
end of the stick, getting a relatively low offer and only making a measly $2300 the first 4 years
from his lease. However, due to his large area of land and his royalties, his fortune took a turn for
the better and he was able to afford things that he never would have dreamed of before like a
new kitchen, riding mower, and a college fund for his granddaughter (82). However, on the other
side of the scale is the story of Scott McClain. Scott didn’t agree to much, he simply allowed for
the fracking vehicles that would be operating on another property to use a dirt road that he had
constructed in the years prior. However, within the year that he agreed, the road itself had
collapsed due to the increased wear and tear, his chimney had collapsed due to the constant
rattling of the heavy vehicles mere yards away from his house, and Scott had lost his right to
bear firearms on his own property. In the case of Scott, he clearly “lost” the fracking game (100).
There are many more examples and there are far more examples of people losing their way of
life due to fracking than those who gain from it, making it akin to the average lottery or casino.
2. Use examples from the chapters to illustrate social inequality and its impact on the
people in the area.
Many times in the chapters we have noticed certain circumstances of social inequality. The
people with less property which they inherited usually got the short end of the stick, and people
with large amounts of property who leased did not have certain key parts of land the frackers
were looking for. An example from chapter three would be earlier in the chapter when the author
talked about the fracking lottery and how it affected landowners based on geographical factors of
that specific piece of land. A direct quote would be, “Because the pipeline could not be
completed without crossing the corner of Merril’s property, he said he was able to obtain a
payment of over 60,000$, which was more than some nearby farmers received for leasing dozens
of acres.” (pg 76 Jerolmack). Another example came from chapter four, this example gave us
some information on how Private land leasing affected people in the surrounding area, and
potentially without them knowing. “Private land leasing, as it turned out, routinely violated the
Lockean proviso by creating spillover effects that worsened the well-being of others in the
community and infringed on their freedom to benefit from their own property.” (pg 99
Jerolmack). This example provides us a clear reason to conclude social inequality because these
people had been missing out on their promised benefits by actions caused by the result of the
very law that was placed to ensure the American citizen has right to their “personal sovereignty”
and it will not be infringed by another's “natural rights''.
3. What are your views on the spending behaviors of the leaser like George? Use
sociological perspective to discuss your answer.
I believe that George was not accustomed to having that much wealth at his disposal and so he
decided to spend his money the way that he believed he should spend it. The cultural hegemony
definitely played a role in him determining what he should spend his money on, which is why
instead of investing his money and looking to get a return on the profits he was receiving, he
simply consumed and bought products the moment he got his hands on the money, even going as
far as to buy things he couldn’t necessarily afford (he had to sell his passenger van in order to be
able to afford the new SUV he bought his granddaughter) (100). If he had not been influenced by
a culture that taught him to spend money as quickly as he received it, he might have used his
money differently.
4. Discuss the "mountain man" culture and how it compares to today's expression of
freedom.
The mountain man as discussed in the book, and the mountain man that the group can portray
just by the name are exactly as what we’d expect their [mountain men] culture to be like. As
talked about in the book. The mountain man culture to put into simple terms is the fact that the
property owner knows his property and he is king of that property which is off the land. They
had a strong connection to that area of land, and according to the author and book, “who was
fiercely attached to place and family and yet “immune to the spirit of cooperation``'' (pg 93
Jerolmack). They listen to the law but will defend themselves at any time if their rights are
infringed by the government. This can be compared to today's expression of freedom because
today's expression of freedom is the power to do what you want to do, and the government
giving you rights to do so. Many people in the United States have a common culture of owning
guns “right to bear arms” (although the right to bear arms is not an expression of freedom, it is an
example of a freedom many people in the US have different than other countries.) and are
willing to stand up to the government and big corporations if they choose to take away their
certain freedoms. Freedom can be compared to mountain men solely because they both know
what they have, have a spiritual connection to what they have, and will do anything to defend it.
5. The chapters give a little history of how indigenous lands were occupied by the settlers in
the past. Do you think it is justified if the gas companies took that land for energy
production? Discuss why you think so.
People who settled in indigenenous lands have a very specific way of surviving and thriving in
their own way, and develop themselves as a group. When the land is taken for energy
development, it changes the way the people who lived on that land's way of life. What they have
learned in their cultural community, and the area of their inhabitants was essentially crucial to
how successful their communities economy was, and how impactful it would be on their later
generations. In the book, it states that “John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts
Bay Colony, infamously endorsed dispossessing the land from ‘the Natives in New England,’ on
the grounds that they ‘enclose no land’ and neither had the skills nor the inclination to ‘improve
the land'’” (96). According to this logic, it is completely justified, considering that the people
who currently own the farmland are not seeking to use the energy of natural gas sitting beneath
their feet. If this logic is followed, the people would not even need to be paid considering they
are standing in the way of progress and innovation by refusing to give the land to the excavators.