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
What is fracking? Fracking is the process of drilling into the ground and releasing a high-pressure water mixture into rocks in order to fracture them and release the natural gases inside. The water mixture consists of water, sand and chemicals. Fracking is beneficial because it lowers the prices of oil and gas, reduces America’s dependency on foreign oil, and reduces CO2 contribution.
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.
FRACKING AND ITS CRITICISM Since the mid-80s, The First Nations and their leaders have raised numerous concerns about the failure of the government and industries in Canada to properly consult them before developing any of their lands. Fracking is a technique used in stimulating the fracturing of rocks through the use of pressurized liquid. The fluid used comprises of hot water, sand, and proppants that are thickened using appropriate agents. The fluid enters the deep-rock and makes it possible to have natural gas, petroleum and brine flow up. If the pressure is removed, the grains in the proppants are capable of keeping the fractures while open.
Fracking one well can take millions of gallons of water, but it 's not just water. In the water there are chemicals, helping to break down the rock. According to the article, Fracking Fury, “ the fluids consist of millions of gallons of water, chemical additives, and proppants” (2 AT). Chemicals like benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene are shot down into a well. The author claims that, “Critics are nervous the cocktail of fluids will leak”(2.3).
Fracking poses potential danger to all of the workers. For example fracking can cause small earthquakes that can be harmful. The earthquakes have not been a safety concern yet but if they get any bigger they can become a big concern. During fracking it takes several days, during those days it requires continuous monitoring to ensure the safety of the workers.
Unfortunately, tremors and earthquakes have spiked over the years as a result of fracking. Fracking has had such an impact on the environment causing earthquakes, water supply damage, and polluting the air. (Background Information) Fracking is also known as hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracking is a method in which natural gas is extracted. Shale formations underneath are injected with a mixture of chemicals and water at a high pressure in order to break up shale rock.
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).
Fracking has helped the United States and other fracking nations reduce CO2 emissions since natural gas is one of the cleanest energy sources.
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.
Therefore, fracking will not continue because of its bad reputation. Fracking companies should also list the chemicals used in fracking fluids so that the contamination in water can be reversed. Linda Dong from dangersoffracking.com clearly explains that the underground water that is contaminated is permanent damage. Without knowing the chemicals in fracking fluids, better alternatives to harmful chemicals cannot be found. However, the fracking fluid that is left underground damages the environment that we live in.
Fracking is one of the best ways to get natural resources. “Fracking is a process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside” (Unknown). Adversaries of fracking will say that it is dangerous, use up our water supply, and poison our water supply, but that is not totally true, fracking will bring in more money, save money, and will make the air cleaner and safer. Fracking may seem unacceptable because of what people say about it, however, when they drill deep into the facts they will see that fracking is actually very beneficial. Fracking will bring in tons of money for all of the United States.
