your link made me download the video. Is that the expected behavior? Anyway, here's what I thought:
BTW I write down what I'm thinking as I'm watching it, so that's why there isn't much of a narrative critique until the end.
I like that you're concentrating on techniques like foregrounding. But mix it up a little. We had two wide shots back to back with foreground dirt in focus and the actual subject of the story blurred out in the background. This is just my style, but the first time I show you whatever the story is about, I like you to be able to see it clearly (unless, of course, I'm building up to some sort of surprise, which wasn't happening here.)
And there's a third shot with the same theme - - in focus dirt in front of blurry geyser. Video tricks like that work very well when properly applied, but when seen 3 times in short succession, start to look like the photog was throwing video tricks at the story.
Line: "And the grass?.. . " Show the grass. I saw a big truck on dirt. Get me a tight shot of the crapped out grass. Glad to see. . er. . hear, that you put a nat pop in there, though.
Check the nat at 1:19. that should have been blended better. it just kinda blats out at you.
I don't think you had a whole lot to work with here from the writing department. Your reporter is still stuck in big-word territory for one (but was unsuccessful should be "but it didn't work.")
And I suspect, since you have shots of the guy trying to cap off the well, that you have more shots of them trying to cap off the well. That should have been the story hook. Tights of the guy getting splashed in the face by the water explosion, lots of nats, get me into the scene, make me feel like I need a towel, and *then* the landowner says (while we're still watching the guy struggle to cap the well) the environmental disaster line. Then tell us what the guy's doing. And tell us why. And then show us that the capping didn't work. And THEN talk about what that's going to mean - -the environmental impact, etc. Finish off with a shot of the roaring water (nats!) and what's going to happen next ("They'll try to cap it again tomorrow, but if that doesn't work .. . ")
You're obviously not lazy. I see that you ran all over the place getting shots. And your use of sequences is good. I think it might be a bit better, though, if you didn't stick the tripod in a spot, and grab a wide and a tight, or a wide and a medium, and then go off looking for the next sequence. Instead, grab a wide and a tight from one spot, then a wide and a tight of the same subject from a different angle. Then use one shot from the first position, and one from the second to build the sequence. That way you get a bit of a different angle on your sequences so it doesn't look like you just zoomed in, but are moving around the scene, which is what an observer would be doing if he were there instead of watching it on TV.
I like the closing shot. The lone worker standing on the pile of dirt staring at the water conveyed a sense of hopelessness about the story. I wish it had been up a little longer. We're just starting to get that the guy is helpless to stop it when we're back on the reporter.
All in all, I think you did good work here, especially for entry-level. I think a lot of what I didn't like would have been vastly improved had the writing been better.