http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/7429009.html
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process to maximize the extraction of underground resources by injecting millions of gallons or more of fluid and chemicals deep underground to pry out gas that is tightly locked away (Brady, par. 2, Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information). The article, In Support of Fracking: the Facts and the Science, from The Houston Chronicle and written by Thomas Kurth, says that “fracking provides a significantly cleaner from of fossil fuel” (Kurth, par. 2). The United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, actually endorses fracking, saying “Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and [fracking] is one way of accessing that vital resource (Hydraulic Fracturing, par. 1).” However, fracking is not the way to solve our energy crisis like the EPA and Kurth’s article make it out to be. Fracking, in fact, causes more harm than good. This article hides the true environmental consequences of fracking by giving insignificant reasons to why fracking should be a large source of energy.
By definition, fracking is the process of injecting fluids underground at high pressures, forming fractures in the rock, and oil or gas will flow more freely out of the formation. There is one big consequence for doing this. Some of the injected fluids remain trapped underground. Many of these fluids are considered hazardous materials and carcinogens, and are toxic enough to contaminate groundwater resources. There are a number of cases in the U.S. where hydraulic fracturing is the prime suspect in incidences of impaired or polluted drinking water. In Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, incidents have been recorded where residents have reported changes in water quality following fracturing operations of gas wells near their homes (EarthWorks, par. 2).
By definition, fracking is the process of injecting fluids underground at high pressures, forming fractures in the rock, and oil or gas will flow more freely out of the formation. There is one big consequence for doing this. Some of the injected fluids remain trapped underground. Many of these fluids are considered hazardous materials and carcinogens, and are toxic enough to contaminate groundwater resources. There are a number of cases in the U.S. where hydraulic fracturing is the prime suspect in incidences of impaired or polluted drinking water. In Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, incidents have been recorded where residents have reported changes in water quality following fracturing operations of gas wells near their homes (EarthWorks, par. 2).
The EPA says, “Water pollution prevention and control measures are critical to improving water quality and reducing the need for costly wastewater and drinking water treatment. Because water pollution can come from many different sources, a variety of pollution prevention and control measures are needed” (Pollution Control). By participating in the process of fracking, the government contradicts this statement. Polluting water sources is an irreversible consequence of fracking. This has become so apparent, that in February 2011, Buffalo, New York, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania both banned the process of fracking. Even though hydraulic fracturing has not started yet in Buffalo, the city does not want to face any sort of fracking repercussions (Gregorio, par. 1, par. 4).
Kurth’s article mentions the HBO documentary Gasland. He does this to show how fracking has recently gotten media attention. Ironically, Gasland is a documentary about how fracking causes harm to the environment. In the documentary, Pennsylvania native Josh Fox received an offer from a company to lease his 19.5 acres of land for nearly $100,000. He declines the offer and instead starts investigating the repercussions of fracking. He travels west to Colorado and Wyoming, where fracking is very common. He finds flammable, filthy water, sick people and animals, and families who no longer use their wells but ship in all their household water. In some cases, the fracking companies provide water after settling a lawsuit (Hale, par. 3, par. 4). This documentary opened the eyes of all of its viewers and was one of the key motivators for the anti-fracking movement. Gasland was so influential, it was nominated for Best Documentary at the 2011 Academy Awards.
Kurth writes, “In 2004, an EPA study reported no confirmed instances of drinking water contamination by fracking fluids in the ground” (Kurth, par. 4). It is interesting that Kurth used as statistic from 2004. Maybe the EPA did not report any instances of contamination seven years ago. But it is clearly shown in Gasland, which was released in 2010, that water was defiantly contaminated. There is a scene in the documentary where Fox lights faucet water on fire. Last time I checked, water does not light on fire unless there is some chemical in it. Chemicals in water would make the water contaminated. Kurth used a well outdated and proven wrong statistic to try to boost his argument (Gasland).
At one point in his article, Kurth addresses the Safe Water Drinking Act in the energy bill of 2005. He talks about how the act exempted natural gas drilling from the act. This is commonly known as the Halliburton Loophole. He goes on to talk about how diesel was the only fluid that was banned but was reported to be used between 2005 and 2009 in nineteen states. He continues to say that the EPA took no action. By talking about this he contradicts his entire article. Isn’t it a bad thing that diesel was used for fracking even thought it was banned? It does not make much sense to why he would write a negative paragraph about fracking when the purpose of the article is in support of fracking. To appeal the Halliburton Loophole, the FRAC Act has been proposed to Congress. This bill will also require natural gas companies to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing FAQ).
While reading Kurth’s article, I noticed that even though he was in support of fracking, he never provided concrete evidence and examples to why fracking is good. He notes that people have problems with it but a large part of his article is about the process of fracking. He assumes that his readers know nothing about the process have no opinion on the issue. He seems well informed by citing statements from the EPA. But because the EPA is pro-fracking, all of these statements show obvious positives.
Fracking is not the only source of energy that is looked down upon. However, it is one of the only ones where people feel its negative effects almost immediately. Water contamination is not the only consequence from fracking. Gas extraction has documented and measurable destructive effects on air quality as well. Kurth is trying to convince his readers that fracking is a good and clean way to obtain natural gas. He could not be more wrong. Even though fracking might be efficient, the negative effect far out weigh the positive ones.
Works Cited
Brady, Jeff. "Face-Off Over 'Fracking': Water Battle Brews On Hill." www.npr.org. 27 May 2009. National Public Radio. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
"Buffalo, NY Bans Hydraulic Fracturing." Reuters.com. Ed. David Gregorio. 08 Feb. 2011. Reuters. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
Gasland. Dir. Josh Fox. Perf. Josh Fox. HBO Documentary Films, 2010. TV.
Hale, Mike. "The Costs of Natural Gas, Including Flaming Water." www.nytimes.com. 20 June 2010. The New York Times. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
"Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information." water.epa.gov. 13 Sept. 2010. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
"Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs." Gasland: A Film by Josh Fox. 2010. n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
"Hydraulic Fracturing." www.epa.gov. 9 Feb. 2011. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
"Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells." Earthworksaction.org. n.d. EarthWorks. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
Kurth, Thomas. "In Support of Fracking: the Facts and the Science." www.chron.com. 15 Feb. 2011. The Houston Chronicle. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
"Pollution Control." www.water.epa.gov. n.d. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.
Greg, this is a good start. You've come up with a strong plan for rebutting Kurth's pro-fracking argument, challenging his lack of evidence (and his reliance on EPA support) and attempting to provide your own counterevidence with a long list of varied sources.
ReplyDeleteAs a reader who is still neutral on this topic, though, I didn't feel strongly convinced that your evidence outweights Kurth's. As you noted in your reflection, it's difficult to find credible evidence on this topic either way, which is why it's remained so contentious, and why it's imperative that you include a scholarly source. It's difficult to go up against the EPA! While I like the way you rely on Gasland as your jackpot source (this is appropriate since Kurth brings it up), it feels like secondhand data. In order for a reader to be convinced that Kurth's argument is limited, I really think we need stronger firsthand evidence from a more credible source, and you need to highlight that credibility.
A few other random suggestions:
Shorten your citations. E.g., "Brady, par. 2" is sufficient.
Titles of articles should be enclosed in quotation marks.
Doesn't the definition of fracking in the second paragraph repeat the one in the first paragraph?
Be sure to cite Kurth's article each time you refer to it.
Try to use more transitions to clarify the connection between your ideas.
This is a challenging rebuttal to write, and you're doing a good job with it. Good luck with your revision.