There are two sides to every argument and hydrofracturing is no different. Phelim McAleer, an investigative journalist and producer of FrackNation, uses logic to convince viewers that fracking does not pose environmental concerns. Josh Fox however, employs a multitude of logical fallacies as well as arguments based on emotions in an attempt to convince the audience that fracturing is bad for the environment. McAleer created his film to refute this opinion. Ultimately, Phelim McAleer’s documentary made a better argument than Josh Fox’s documentary.
Prior to watching Gasland 2 and Truthland, I am familiar with the term “fracking” but never took the time to look into it. After watching these two films, I realized how fracking is a controversial topic in the world of environmentalists. These two very different films explain how fracking is effecting the environment around us. Before explaining further into these films, we need to know what fracking really means. Fracking is “a process by which the rock is split so that natural gas can flow to the surface,” defined by Terry Engelder, a professor of geosciences at Penn State University.
Fracking involves drilling a hole into the ground and injecting a combination of fluids and chemicals into the shale. The fracking fluid contains upwards of 600 different chemicals (David). The pressure of the fluid is what causes the shale to fracture, then releases natural gas. That fracking fluid is what is really dangerous, as this is what poses the biggest threat, since many of those chemicals are extremely dangerous and some are completely unknown by the public. After the fracking process is complete, the fracking water, known as flowback, which includes water, chemicals and additives, is either collected and transferred to holding-tanks or it is injected back into the ground for storage
SUMMARY Journalist, Nick Stockton, in the article, “Fracking’s Problems Go Deeper Than Water Pollution,” published in June 2015, addresses the topic of hydraulic fracturing and argues that fracking has more negative consequences than one might think. Stockton supports his claim first by appealing emotionally through a short summary of a recent event involving fracking and also by utilizing evidence to back up his statements. The author’s overall purpose is to highlight outcomes of fracking in order to make more people aware of issues that can arise from this common way of obtaining energy. Stockton utilizes a scientific, yet critical tone in order to create an unbiased article and appeal to his audience’s concern for the well being of the
My general overview of this article is the methods used to obtain fossil fuels is hurting people and nature all around the world. People are beginning to come to a realization about how fracking is harming the world. However, people in cities like “Buffalo, New York, Pennsylvania, and the author’s hometown
Why is fracking dangerous? During the fracking process natural gases are realized into the well where they are drilling often contaminating the nearby groundwater with methane gases and chemical toxins. After the fracking process the waste fluid is evaporated releasing volatile organic compounds causes acid rain, contaminated air, and ozone at
This is Keirstan, I was wondering if we could put this in as an editorial. Fracking is something that everyone needs to be aware of. There are pros in fracking, but their are also several cons. Fracking is when an oil company 's leases your land, then they start to drill holes in the ground. In those holes they put 596+ chemicals, they do this to get to the natural gas out of the ground.
Lennon says, “Within the first 20 years, methane escaping from within and around the wells, pipelines and compressor stations is 105 times more powerful a greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide” (pg#). This is really good use of this strategy because this makes an appeal to logos. This make Lennon more credible because he is using very good shocking facts in his article. This makes the readers trust him and helps his audience side with his argument of how bad fracking is. This is so because this is how the gas is getting produced is from the dangerous fracking which doesn’t just release bad greenhouse gases but also fouls our wells and makes our water undrinkable.
In addition, there are more downsides to fracking than just water pollution, and that is the pollution of our environment. The condition of our environment is horrendous when fracking is conducted. To add on to that statement, fracking has caused natural gas leakage into the air, marred landscapes, and many more hazards to our environment. Fracking has already caused pollution to the air, and fracking companies have to remove trees, then that takes away more air from our environment. Trees are vital to Earth’s supply of oxygen, and these companies are just taking the air straight out of the lungs of the people.
In the second article "Fracking Threatens Everyone" it is stated "Fracking remains a dangerous practice that poses a threat even if it is done correctly and is carefully monitored" so it seems that the author wants people to stop Fracking because it generates dangers. It is stated "sources of drinking water can be ruined and all different types of pollution can happen in a second" which poses a great threat to many places. For example, the pollution can enter streams and rivers and kill whatever is in it, and harm even more wildlife. It says "This makes fracking a gamble for communities and individuals who may be tempted by the large amounts of money being offered to those who allow their land to be used for fracking" and the author
According to Climatecentral.org, “fracking for natural gas used to produce electricity may make Texas more drought resistant as the state shifts from coal power generation to natural gas power generation” (Magill). This could be a major breakthrough for Texas because not only would we produce electricity and save our environment, but we would also save millions of gallons of water. The amount of water we could save by shifting from coal to natural gas plants “is up to 50 times the amount of water lost in fracking to extract the natural gas from underground shale formations. According to the article, “The study’s authors estimate that for every gallon of water used to frack for natural gas, Texas saved 33 gallons of water by using that gas for electricity generation rather than producing the same amount of power with coal” (Magill).
Should I be freaking out over Fracking? “Could you feel the earthquake?” My uncle texted me last February, after a 3.6 magnitude earthquake struck the Dallas area. Apparently, earthquakes in Dallas- Fort Worth, an area not prone to tremors, is an important enough occurrence to make the local news in Wisconsin. The earthquake on February 27th, 2015, was one of multiple earthquakes to rock the DFW area, causing researchers to question what exactly is making the earth shake.
I am really neutral on the issue. I know there are benefits to fracking for natural gas. It is better for the climate than fossil fuels, and it is cheaper. What I do not know is the extent of the damages it can potentially cause. It is a relatively new practice, and enough time has not passed to cause justification or condemnation.
Using natural gas from fracking is a better and safer alternative than using coal because natural gas does not emit as much carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. The graphs presented on natfuel.com shows that the amount of carbon dioxide
People complain about pollution from factories, cars, global warming, and the melting of polar ice caps, yet many people disregard the dangerous that come with fracking. Fracking is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, and/or boreholes to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas. Fracking is causing an epidemic economically and environmentally. Fracking is continuously destroying the earth day by day. From the endless fracking today’s economy is depleting.
