The Fracturing of Pennsylvania
Author: Eliza Griswold
Publisher: The New York Times
Publication Date: November 17, 2011
Picture:
This picture is a representation of how fracking works. It breaks it down the process in a simple manner.
Summary:
Fracking is becoming more common over the United States. This article deals with the fracturing mainly happening in Pennsylvania. Fracking is the process of pumping water, sand, and chemicals deep into the earth to get natural gas. The problem with this is there may be contamination of drinking water and air as a result of the process. Still today, laws are being set on how to deal with fracking, but in the mean time, homes, specifically farms, are leasing to gas companies to allow fracking to happen on their land. While they are enjoying the money they receive from these leases, effects are happening to others, not just to them and their land. The challenge is to find the technologies and regulations to insure that the economic benefits of this vital energy resource come at no undue cost to the other vital resources of water and air. Just yet, there is every reason to believe that there are solutions to the environmental challenges. However, if these challenges cannot be met, then we should halt fracking.
Opinion:
It seems to me, some people are saying there are insurmountable environmental issues and others say everything is technologically manageable. At this point, I don’t know which side is right. However, this process has just started. If fracking is to continue, there must be credible proof that the hazards can be controlled. I want everything to be secure before fracking becomes too wide-spread, because it is a lot easier to fix fracking now than after great environmental harm has already occurred. As of right now I feel as though I can trust my tap water, and in fifty years I want to be able to say the same thing. In the end, the matter is really a simple issue of demonstrated proof. If the fracking companies can demonstrate they have the technologies and controls to protect the environment, then fine. But the demonstration must come before the granting of general permission to go ahead.
Questions:
- Do you think the technology will be able to avoid environmental hazards?
- By what balance can we measure the benefits against the costs, because there is no such thing as an energy source—solar, wind, coal, hydro-electric, atomic, whatever—without an environmental impact of some degree?
- Because this issue is so passionately argued by both sides—the pro and the con—how can the average person know which claims are reasonable and true and which are just propaganda for the one side or the other.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteWe have been talking about fracking a lot in class recently. We are starting to learn about all three major fossil fuels, which are coal, oil and natural gas. When we got to natural gas we learned how because of those bad chemicals water is being polluted. In my opinion, although fracking helps solve lack of natural gas for a little, it is bad for the environment. Companies come in and pollute the land and kill animals. Also not much is being done to stop them from doing fracking. What’s worse is that people are allowing this to happen on their yards. Even though they are getting paid a lot of money they are destroying their land. Do they know that it pollutes their water and makes it undrinkable. Overall we should not keep fracking on the environment because of its negative effects.
Answer to question 1
I think that the fracking companies will be able to get away with fracking even though it is harming the environment. These fracking companies have millions and millions of dollars to buy the best lawyers and to bribe government officials. Also oil and other companies like that work together to all stay in business. Now unless fracking becomes a serious topic that spreads throughout the world and is protested against then the big companies will win. If that would happen then the government would have no choice but to help no matter how many bribes they get. I believe that could happen and I hope it will. People must know the negatives to fracking not just the positives.
Fracking is a process that I had not known until this environmental science class. Therefore, it is a very secretive topic that is not widely known by the public. This is morally wrong since fracking causes air pollution and water pollution...to our own drinking water. I believe scientists should not waste their time on calculating the environmental impacts, or how much money fracking costs. I believe scientists should spend time finding renewable sources of energy that the entire world can depend on. What is also morally incorrect, is that the fracking companies are offering money to farms that have land that is capable of the process. Neighbors of these farms have no say in the matter, and then have to deal with the pollution that his hazardous to the human body. And what I am personally mad about, is that fracking is happening in my home state and I had to read this blog to find that out. Without warning, my drinking water could be contaminated or toxic. Not only is fracking harmful to the environment, the companies are harmful to surrounding populations.
ReplyDeleteExpansion
I found this article on MSNBC about Vermont poised to be the first state to outlaw fracking. Governor Peter Shumlin of Vermont disagrees with the process because of its negative effects (earthquakes, pollution, etc.). The article also talks about other parts of the world that disapprove of fracking. The Czech Republic, France, and Bulgaria are halting fracking in their nations. Petroleum industries are angered with the ban, but the EPA agrees with Vermont and the new law. Read this article to find out more.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47343737/ns/us_news-environment/#.T6viRcXh6Sohttp:
Fracking is a horrible process. We learned in class about how the land around where fracking occurs is destroyed. While the article says that fracking can help lessen our reliance on foreign oil, energy companies should instead invest their money into more renewable sources, such as solar and wind. We learned in class that there is nearly no environmental impacts from using solar and wind energy. However, fracking damages the environment greatly. I remember reading a book in English about fracking, and how the lady who owned land under natural gas refused to give her land to the energy companies. She talked about how the land was completely devastated, and how the amount of cattle she had reduced to one forth of the amount before fracking. If I was the New York government, I would refuse to allow fracking. As they can see from what happens in Pennsylvania, fracking destroys the land completely. Water is contaminated, and with New York having a large population they can not afford to contaminate their water supply.
ReplyDeleteAnswer to Question 1
Technology could possibly help prevent leaks into water supplies, but companies would rather squeeze an extra dollar of profit than invest in that technology. The companies could line the piping extra thick to ensure that no chemicals leak into aquifers or groundwater. For the damage on the surface though, the only way to ensure no damage would be to stop fracking altogether.
Opinion:
ReplyDeleteI believe fracking is a terrible process to do because it is harmful to the people in the area of a fracking site as well as any other organism. Today we saw a video on fracking have learned more about how it works and more on how people are affected by fracking. The people who live near an area of a fracking site seem to be in bad condition because of the water they drink from. The water is mixed with some of the chemicals and gases from underground which is harmful to anyone. I am surprised to hear that people actually agreed with it before actually seeing what fracking would do or could do. What surprises me more is the fact that water from the tap can light up with fire because of fracking contaminating the water. The most I have ever seen with fire lighting up really high other than from the fracking video was at a barbeque where they used oil to make the fire go on higher and longer. What scares me though is that much of the fracking is done in Pennsylvania which is here. However I think I can still trust my tap water because there are no fracking sites near hear which can contaminate our waters.
Question 3:
Well an average person can find out about what are truths or lies from both sides by seeing actual results from fracking. What I mean by this is that fracking companies may try to hide something and cover it up and use propaganda but with actual results or affects that is visible an average person will be able to tell what is right and what isn’t. In the video we saw in class today we saw people who drank the contaminated tap water having headaches, dizziness, loss of taste and smell over time. This is just one example of how an average person could find out. The average person could also see how the fracking process actually works to see what is so good or bad about. The affects of fracking would show the truth of what could happen and the actual process would show what companies really aim to get out of fracking.