Sample Unit 3 Student Essay that received a good grade
Hydrofracking: Glass Half Empty
In the midst of our society’s energy crisis, not a day passes
without headlines and conversation addressing the push for a reliable
alternative energy source. For instance, In the New York Times alone,
recent headlines include “Solar on the Water,” (Woody, Todd)
“Resistance to Gas Drilling Rises on Unlikely Soil,” (Galbraith, Kate)
and “Saudi Cut in Oil Production Stirs Speculation” (Krauss, Clifford).
As a nation striving to shift from expensive, environmentally unfriendly
oil and coal to more practical sources, we are faced with an abundance
of options. Nonetheless, not far from each option lie significant costs to
our society. The majority of these costs far surpass monetary expenses,
as they range anywhere from public health risks to serious
environmental threats. Their effects will not be truly felt until we
commit to implementing an alternative energy source. Throughout the
past several years, one potential energy source has consistently received
attention from state legislatures, Congress and the Environmental
Protection Agency: natural gas.
Present in the United States in considerable abundance, this fuel
has sparked significant debate between big industry and
environmentalists. Big industry argues for natural gas as a helpful
transition to different types of fuels. Environmentalists advocate for
everyday citizens and their families, when considering potential negative
costs associated with the process. A procedure that has been used for
years, termed hydraulic fracturing (better known as “hydrofracking”),
has recently initiated serious environmental concerns (Rush 1). Simply
put, hydrofracking entails tapping into underground natural gas reserves
by blasting the earth’s bedrock with explosive material and fracturing
the rock with countless gallons of toxic water to create boreholes
allowing gas to escape (Steingraber). In reference to diagram A, which
represents a simplified version of the technique, the wells being drilled
allow for natural gas to escape the underground fissures, and eventually
make its way to the surface. Unfortunately, this sought-after natural gas
is not the only substance being released into the air during the process.
Hydrofracking discharges incredibly toxic chemicals such as benzene
and radium into surface air. These chemicals not only have known
detrimental effects on health, but are capable of contaminating drinking-
water supplies for thousands of citizens. As with any complicated issue,
there are many valid approaches to solving this problem. In turn,
narrowing down these solutions to only the most ideal is imperative, and
serves to support why I have chosen to emphasize the discontinuation of
hydrofracking, and the preservation of watersheds as the most viable
solution.
In truth, as a college student I am guilty of adopting the all-too-
common attitude toward environmental issues facing our society today:
These problems are too scientific, too broad, too overwhelming to think
about, let alone care about. When an issue is made so easy to tune out, it
becomes difficult to immerse ourselves in. If I will never witness the
detriments of hydrofracking, why should I expend any effort to fix the
situation? Yet, as not only a student at Syracuse University, but a
resident of a small city in Upstate New York, I will see first-hand the
consequences of hydrofracking, as countless other individuals will. Not
only is New York’s portion of Marcellus shale a principal target for
natural gas, two watersheds that might be drilled in the future are the
New York City watershed, and the Skaneateles Lake watershed which
supplies hundreds of thousands of residents with clean drinking-water—
roughly thirty minutes from Syracuse University (“Natural Gas and
Clean Water”). Although it has become almost habitual to turn the other
cheek to such issues, as students it should be our responsibility to seek
awareness and involvement in issues with the capability of significantly
harming our greater community. In a broader context, hydraulic
fracturing will have damaging effects on our nation as a whole, and
should not be continued. Ultimately, hydrofracking hits home, and it hits
hard.
As such, if hydrofracking is allowed to continue in the Upstate
New York region, the costs associated with the technique greatly
outweigh any benefits. The central claims regarding the advantages of
hydraulic fracturing emphasize the process as being not only a
promising source of energy, but a promising source of jobs in
economically depressed areas. In the National Geographic Daily News
article titled “A Drive for New Jobs through Energy,” author Marianne
Lavelle insists that in addition to hydrofracking making a new, clean
source of fuel accessible, it grants the opportunity for “a much-needed
boost to the state’s economy…” In addition, Lavelle addresses families
who have been given the opportunity to generate revenue to open small
businesses and make improvements on their farms through leasing their
land to hydrofracking companies as new drill sites (Lavelle). She
represents the ideals of many individuals in support of hydraulic
fracturing, and does so in a way that offers a noticeable balance of ethos,
logos and pathos. As a current senior editor for Digital Media at National
Geographic Society with over twenty years of experience in business
and politics with a concentration in energy, climate and the environment,
Lavelle brings a solid appeal based on ethos (“Marianne Lavelle”). She
argues for the benefits of hydrofracking in a logical manner through the
use of meaningful statistics and concise claims. By incorporating an
anecdote regarding a woman in her mid-forties who lost her job and
found security in the opportunity to become a truck driver for the
Marcellus shale industry, Lavelle strengthens her initial arguments with
an appeal based on pathos (Lavelle).
Initially, the benefits of hydrofracking that Lavelle argues for
throughout her piece appear to serve as valid reasons to continue this
process. The idea of establishing an effective transition to alternative
fuel sources, along with economic stimulation in regions battling high
unemployment rates is an appealing one. Although I agree with the idea
that hydrofracking may provide families with new job opportunities, I
cannot accept Lavelle’s overall conclusion that allowing this process to
continue would ultimately be beneficial because in her attempt to
recognize counterarguments, she fails to effectively refute them. This
poses as a problematic aspect of her piece, as it ultimately weakens the
initially valid claims in support of hydraulic fracturing. For instance,
when addressing possible job opportunities for residents of Pennsylvania
as a result of continued hydrofracking, Lavelle mentions that “…job
experts say at least 75 percent of rig workers are from out of state.” In
turn, it is implied that minimal jobs are actually being offered to
residents of these economically depressed areas, while individuals from
out-of-state are reaping the benefits. In addition, the need for workers
experienced in the processes and technology behind the technique of
hydraulic fracturing disqualifies a great majority of families from taking
advantage of these newly available jobs (Lavelle). Moreover, Lavelle
demonstrates that even an individual who was given a job opportunity
due to hydrofracking is skeptical of the long-term consequences
associated with the process. The woman whose anecdote was utilized by
Lavelle to make an appeal based on pathos argues:
I think short-term, it's a very, very good thing, it will provide
a lot of jobs, a lot of people will make a lot of money …and also
[will be] creating American fuel instead of foreign. But then there's
health risks. Our environment …nobody can really predict what the
damage is going to be (Lavelle).
Lavelle’s placement of this statement is not strategic in terms of
strengthening her argument, as she opted to include it within the last few
paragraphs of her article. In turn, the reader is left with a sense that the
benefits associated with hydrofracking are greatly outweighed by the
costs, which opposes Lavelle’s overall intended project. When viewing
the process as a short-term issue, new job opportunities are a significant
positive impact. Nevertheless, when viewed through a lens emphasizing
the greater context, hydrofracking poses numerous threats with
detrimental effects on both health and drinking-water.
Although there are a wide variety of negative effects associated
with the process of hydrofracking, in a local sense, several costs stand
out amongst the others as particularly detrimental to the Upstate New
York area. Of the many concerns being expressed by experts and
everyday citizens alike, one of the most devastating results of hydraulic
fracturing is the release of chemicals into the air, polluting areas
surrounding drilling sites with harmful toxins. According to an article
appearing in the Drilling Down series in The New York Times titled
“Natural Gas and Clean Water,” “a single well can cough up a million
gallons of wastewater laced with carcinogens like benzene and
radioactive elements like radium.” Benzene, a highly cancerous
substance even when in small amounts, is responsible for health issues
that are anything but beneficial. The fear of the escape of carcinogens
through hydrofracking is one that is well substantiated. The concerns
portrayed in “Natural Gas and Clean Water,” are directly reflected in an
article appearing in the September/October 2010 issue of Orion
magazine cleverly titled “The Whole Fracking Enchilada,” by ecologist
Sandra Steingraber. Steingraber offers an impressive appeal based on
ethos in her article, as she writes well within her area of expertise in
chemical contamination, human rights and the environment (“Sandra
Steingraber”). She also presents her arguments throughout her article in
a way that is both logical and sensible to the reader. By strategically
incorporating statistics and hard facts into her piece, Steingraber
demands the reader’s attention. For instance, she argues that by the year
2012, “…100 billion gallons per year of fresh water will be turned into
toxic fracking fluid” (Steingraber). In addition, Steingraber explicitly
lists the “environmental precepts” being harmed as a result of
hydrofracking, such as public health problems and the release of
carcinogens, as she reiterates her initial claims (Steingraber). In doing
so, Steingraber brings a solid appeal based on logos to the source.
Steingraber’s article culminates with a personal anecdote claiming that
nearly half of the community she lives in is leased to
“frackers” (Steingraber). Her credentials, along with an influential
personal connection to this debate and her logical presentation of
arguments reflect a strong sense of urgency and sincerity throughout her
piece.
In her attendance at conferences regarding hydrofracking, she
has listened to a hazards material expert explain to individuals residing
in areas surrounding hydrofracking sites that “…many parts per million
of benzene will raise risks for leukemia and sperm abnormalities linked
to birth deformities” (Steingraber). Moreover, reservations about
hydrofracking far surpass solely experts and specialists, and are being
expressed by countless families as well. Steingraber articulates to her
audience the problems facing families in Pennsylvania, as their children
suffer nosebleeds and their ponds bubble with methane gas.
The costs driven by hydraulic fracturing are already being felt in
other states, and will inevitably approach residents of Upstate New York
should this technique persist. In addition to the release of highly toxic
chemicals, hydrofracking serves as a damaging threat to watersheds. In
turn the purity of drinking-water supplies are severely threatened. Aside
from the New York City watershed which provides drinking-water to
roughly 8.2 million people, the Skaneateles Lake watershed which
provides hundreds of thousands of individuals with clean water will be
at high risk if drilling for natural gas is not prohibited (“Natural Gas and
Clean Water”). Ultimately, families in the Upstate New York region will
feel the impacts of drinking water contamination.
It was determined through technical evaluations in New York
State that “…hydrofracking poses an unacceptable threat to the
unfiltered, freshwater supply for 9 million New Yorkers, and cannot
safely be permitted within the New York City watershed” (Rush 2). This
alarming conclusion stems from fluid movement and the transport of
fracking chemicals, both of which serve as ways in which drinking-
water supplies could be tainted by hydraulic fracturing. Most often,
chemicals utilized throughout the hydrofracking process are transported
by trucks on rural roads only to be stored in highly potent form (2).
More dangerous than the state these chemicals are stored in is the risk of
spills into the countless reservoirs along the route to drilling sites that
provide residents with a safe source of drinking water. As traffic
congestion along these roads increases, so does the potential for spills,
and the ultimate contamination of reservoirs. As such, cities may be
forced to discontinue tapping into these reservoirs for significant
amounts of time, until the water quality meets drinking-water standards
once again (2). Initially, this potential threat may not stir up
overwhelming feelings of concern to an individual who does not reside
in close proximity to reservoirs or other safe drinking water sources.
Nonetheless, with a reservoir within walking distance from where my
family currently lives, this issue could become all too familiar in the
future. Although the typical family today does not drive by a reservoir
on their daily commute to work or school, adopting an apathetic attitude
would be detrimental nevertheless. Not being able to see where your
drinking water originates from is no guarantee that it is safe from
contamination by hydrofracking chemicals.
In addition to the risk of drinking-water contamination through
transporting spills, less-obvious or unreported fracking chemical spills
pose as another hazard to the purity of our water. Furthermore, fractures
created during the process of hydrofracking lend themselves to fracking
fluid migration, in due course resulting in groundwater contamination.
Unlike the almost immediately visible effects of reservoir
contamination, the corruption of groundwater supplies are extremely
difficult to detect, resulting in long-term threats that may take years to
discover (2). Overall, the costs of hydraulic fracturing are too alarming
to ignore, especially when they will eventually be felt by families in
Upstate New York.
As concerns regarding the process of hydrofracturing have
become increasingly prevalent, so have several valid solutions to the
problem. When considering the serious costs associated with hydraulic
fracturing, both experts and residents alike have articulated possible
alternatives. Perhaps the most obvious action that can be taken is to
continue drilling for natural gas. When taking into consideration the
employment opportunities that could arise from further drilling in
economically depressed areas, this solution seems ideal. Nonetheless,
who is to be certain local residents will receive these jobs? Who will
truly profit from new employment opportunities? Will gas companies
indirectly reap the benefits? It is only through continued hydrofracking
that these new jobs, coupled with a cleaner source of energy, can be
pursued. As such, allowing hydraulic fracturing to persist in
Pennsylvania and eventually in the New York City and Skaneateles
watersheds appears to be a beneficial solution. On the other hand, the
consequences resulting from carrying out this action will negatively
impact the lives of many. In a broad sense, the environment will be
violated by continued drilling into our earth’s bedrock, and the
aforementioned costs regarding watershed contamination have the
potential to become a reality. In a local sense, families residing within
the vicinity of Syracuse University will feel these consequences in the
manifestation of unsafe sources of drinking-water and repeated exposure
to carcinogens. In weighing this solution with other possible alternatives,
it becomes obvious that the consequences drastically overshadow any
benefits from the continuation of hydrofracking.
Initially the solutions to hydrofracking appear clear cut—
continue drilling for natural gas, or end the process altogether.
Nonetheless, an email interview with Connie Schreppel, who has a PhD
in Environmental Science, proved otherwise. Schreppel, with over thirty
years on the job experience in the water quality and treatment field, is
anything but lacking in credentials (Schreppel, personal interview). Well
within her area of expertise, she expressed legitimate concerns with the
overall process of hydrofracking. More importantly, Schreppel’s outlook
on possible solutions to the issue was enlightening. In providing
information about a creative potential solution, she offers insight into
hydrofracking resolution to individuals who may be less involved in
resolving the issue at stake. Schreppel strongly advocated for more
disclosure on the part of fracking companies as to what chemicals are
being utilized in each drilling well, and for more monitoring of the
groundwater at drill sites (Schreppel, personal interview).
In addition, she provided information regarding a possible
solution to hydrofracking in the form of a Star Gazette news article
entitled “Company Touts Alternative Fracking Method,” by G. Jeffery
Aaron. The article highlights a new alternative to the conventional
hydrofracking technique, used by GASFRAC, an energy company
headquartered in Canada (Aaron). GASFRAC releases natural gas by
injecting the underground rock with gelled liquid petroleum, which
ultimately is resurfaced as propane gas (Aaron). This propane gas can
then be reused after it is chilled back into a gel state. The new technique
has been used in Texas, and GASFRAC is considering expanding its
usage to New York State, as it removes the use of settling ponds of toxic
chemicals and water created in the original hydrofracking process
(Aaron). The gelled liquid petroleum has been referred to by some as
“miracle fluid,” and initially poses as a possibly less hazardous means
by which to harvest natural gas (Aaron). Nonetheless, this potential
solution is not without significant consequences. Despite an increase in
GASFRAC’s annual revenue, Aaron reveals in the article that “…its
stock price fell after three of its workers suffered minor burns in a
worksite explosion caused by leaking propane gas.” In turn, the
consequences of employing such a new technique to the process of
hydrofracking are made clearer. Overall, if a process such as the one
GASFRAC advocates is to be successful, more time to better understand
the process is imperative. Without thorough analysis and education
regarding the use of gelled liquid petroleum to extract natural gas,
scenarios similar to the aforementioned have the potential to become
commonplace. Although this alternative solution seems to be the most
palatable, without a longer time frame with which to solve any
discrepancies with the technique, the consequences outshine any benefits
in the current controversy surrounding hydrofracking as a whole.
Upon weighing the most ideal solutions with regards to
hydrofracking, each option appears appropriate in a different context. In
a short term sense, the continuation of hydrofracking seems beneficial in
that it will provide our nation with a cleaner alternative energy source
and simultaneous employment opportunities. In addition, the new
technique involving gelled liquid petroleum provides the hydrofracking
industry with a potentially less hazardous way of releasing trapped gas.
However, these short term solutions are overshadowed by a more
simplified, basic one—to permanently discontinue hydrofracking, and to
preserve natural watersheds. This solution challenges the belief that the
benefits resulting from hydrofracking are more significant than the
detriments. Nonetheless, I recognize that completely eliminating the use
of this process altogether may jeopardize eliminating a potentially
promising source of natural energy. As such, at the very least,
discontinuing hydrofracking until more in-depth analysis and studies are
conducted would serve as the most ideal solution to the problem.
In considering the wealth of information available about
hydrofracking, and the costs and benefits associated with the process, I
believe what is needed most is a longer time frame. A decision with the
potential to negatively impact hundreds of thousands of families cannot
be taken lightly, or made with haste. Furthermore, although the costs of
hydraulic fracturing still outshine any benefits stemming from the
process, a more ample amount of time to conclude whether it should be
continued is crucial. In a long term context, eliminating hydrofracking
would also eliminate degradation of our environment, and serious public
health consequences. Yet, before an overall decision can be reached, it is
imperative to explore alternative methods, and any potential
consequences that may arise as a result of utilizing them. In weighing
each alternative, this solution is the best option, as it involves minimal
consequence when pitted against other courses of action. Given the
context and ultimate costs of hydrofracking, less action is clearly the
best action at this point. So before we ignore the issue altogether, or
adopt an indifferent attitude, we as college students in Upstate New York
should strive to remain involved and aware. Connie Schreppel, PhD,
emphasized precisely why we need to be concerned when she argued,
“It’s your future. There is only so much fresh water available and once
that is gone where will we be?” (Schreppel, personal interview).
Although your family may not directly feel the detriments of
hydrofracking, families surrounding Syracuse University will.
Ultimately, a responsibility we take on as educated students is to keep
the best interest of our greater community at heart, and to give back to it
what we get out of it on a daily basis.
Works Cited
Aaron, Jeffrey G. “Company Touts Alternative Fracking Method.”
stargazette.com. Gannett. 13 Apr. 2011. Web. 16 Apr. 2011.<http://
www.stargazette.com/article/20110413/
NEWS01/104130341/Company-touts-alternative-fracking-
method?odyssey=tab |topnews|text|Local%20News>.
Galbraith, Kate. “Resistance to Gas Drilling Rises on Unlikely Soil.”
nytimes.com. The New York Times Company, 23 Apr. 2011. Web.
23 Apr. 2011. < http://www.nytimes.com /2011/04/24/us/
24ttnaturalgas.html?_r=1&ref=energy-environment>.
Hoffman, Doug L. How Hydrofracking Works. Digital image. The
Resilient Earth. 25 Mar. 2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. <http://
www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/america-gets- fracked>.
Krauss, Clifford. “Saudi Cut in Oil Production Stirs Speculation.”
nytimes.com. The New York Times Company, 22 Apr. 2011. Web.
23 Apr. 2011. < http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/saudi-
cut-in-oil-production-stirs-speculation/?ref=energyenvironment>.
Lavelle, Marianne. “A Drive for New Jobs through Energy.”
nationalgeographic.com. National Geographic Society. 14 Oct.
2010. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. < http://news.nationalgeographic
.com/news/2010/10/101022-energy-marcellus-shale-gas-jobs-
economic/>.
“Marianne Lavelle.” linkedin.com. LinkedIn Corporation. 2011. Web. 12
Apr. 2011. < http://www.linkedin.com/pub/
marianne-lavelle/7/503/53b>.
“Natural Gas and Clean Water.” wordpress.com. Skaneateles Lake
Watershed and Hydrofracking. 25 Mar. 2011. Web. 11 Apr.
2011. < http://fivetownwatershed.
wordpress.com/2011/03/25/new-york-times-editorial-on-
skaneateles-lake-watershed/>.
Rogers, Rob. Digital image. American Rivers. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
2010. Web. 13 Apr.2011. <http://www.americanrivers.org/
newsroom/blog/ny-senate-votes-for-marcellus-
moratorium.html>.
Rush, Paul V. “The Threat From Hydrofracking.” American Water Works
Association Journal 102.9 (2010) : 1-4. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
“Sandra Steingraber.” steingraber.com. 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. <
http://steingraber.com/>.
Schreppel, Connie. Personal interview. Email. 18 Apr. 2011.
Steingraber, Sandra. “The Whole Fracking Enchilada.” climate-
connections.org. Climate Connections. 28 Sep. 2010. Web.
11 Apr. 2011. < http://climate-connections.org /
2010/09/28/the-whole-fracking-enchilada/>.
Woody, Todd. “Solar on the Water.” nytimes.com. The New York Times
Company, 19 Apr. 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2011. < http://
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/business/energy-
environment/20float.html?ref=energy-environment>.
Please note: Google Docs would not allow me to paste Diagram A, or
the other image into the document. They are included in the hard copy.
Top Related