Allison Barker
November 4th
Earth Science / Block C Mrs. McClellan
Murawski, John. "Local & North Carolina State News from Raleigh, NC | NewsObserver.com." Duke Scientists: Faulty Wells, Not Fracking, Contaminated Drinking Water in Texas, Pennsylvania. Newsobserver.com, 15 Sept. 2014. Web. 17 Sept. 2014. <http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/09/15/4153640/duke-scientists-fracking-didnt.html>.
This article is about a study performed by Duke scientists which provided new information on whether or not hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, was potentially harmful to the public. Fracking is a way to drill natural gas from shale rock layers underground. Because it produces natural gas, it is more sustainable and better for the environment than coal or oil. Fracking had, in previous studies, been linked to the contamination of drinking water with methane gas. This study of 133 water wells in Texas and Pennsylvania found that fracking may not be to blame. In fact, leaky well shafts near the surface might be the culprits.This could prove extremely influential because the main argument of those against fracking is that fracking could cause toxic and radioactive substances to leak out through fissures and contaminate drinking water. Although this study only proves that the tested wells did not leak gas due to hydraulic fracturing, this is likely to be true for all wells. According to the article, unstable wells are a large issue in fracking, and experts are hoping to fix the issue before the moratorium, or prohibition, on fracking in North Carolina is lifted next year. The Mining and Energy Commission is finalizing the rules for new well shaft construction standards, and these standards should start being enforced next year.
This article also discusses a previous study done by the Duke scientists in 2011 which was highly controversial. This study found methane gas concentrations in drinking water and, while it was common knowledge that poor cement jobs were the leading source of drinking water contamination, the Duke professors titled the study in such a way as to imply that the contamination was linked to gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. While methane gas itself is not poisonous, it could cause explosions or fires and may be an indicator of other substances yet to come. Residents in areas that practice fracking have complained of various ailments, although those for fracking claim that there is no way that fracking could cause chemicals to leak into water.
This new study is very important to the world of science. For years, people have searched for a more sustainable energy source than the ones we use now, namely coal and oil. Fracking provides a way to use natural shale gas as a power source, which is much better for the environment than nonrenewable sources. If fracking really did cause lethal chemicals to seep into drinking water, we would need to search for other renewable energy sources. However, this new study proves that fracking is still a good alternative to the more harmful power sources. If many people used shale natural gas to power their lives instead of coal and oil, fewer toxins and about 50% less carbon dioxide would be released into the air, which would help the environment and slow global warming.
This article was very well written and gave the reader a good understanding of the conflict between those for fracking and those against fracking. The main flaw that I found in the article was that it did not explain what fracking was. I feel that that is vital to the reader’s comprehension of this issue to understand what the actual process of hydraulic fracturing is. Although at the bottom of the page they had a very informative, interactive explanation of fracking, a one-sentence overview of the process would have aided my comprehension while I read the story. The issue that I found with the study was that they only tested the wells in Pennsylvania and Texas. Maybe they would find different results if they tested the wells in many different places. Overall, this article gave me new insight into the conflict over energy resources, and the study that it writes of could help natural gasses change the world.
Your article was really well written. One fact I found interesting was that fracking is better for the environment than coal or oil because it produces a natural gas. Another interesting fact in your review was that methane gas is found in drinking water.
ReplyDeleteYour review was really good. You presented you topic well and made it easy to read. I liked how you went into such depth with you summary. You showed that you had a really good understanding on your article by adding in a issue with the study.
One way you could better your review is by condensing you summary a little bit because it was really lengthy. But overall your review was excellent!
The main thing I really enjoyed about your piece Ali, is that your use of
ReplyDeletevocabulary and the way you phrased things was in an easy way to understand. You hadsome really great words in there. I thought your article was a great one to pick, since it showed a disagreement in science. You were able to give examples, and show both sides of the story. Which you did a great job of doing. You also had great facts, and you said them in a way so that you weren’t just listing facts. Your piece was very well written and had a great flow to it.To improve your work, I think you should add to what would happen to the human body if the gas and gasses, like methane, were to constantly be entering your body. Do people die? What would it do to your body? Another thing to add would be, if fracking led to the poisoning of water what renewable energy sources could we use to sustain ourselves and how would that happen?Overall, I was really impressed with how you wrote this response. I liked your
use of great vocabulary, and the issues you addressed. This is a real issue that is close to home and it is serious one, that should be discussed, and you explain both sides of the argument very well.