Media Writing - Hydraulic Fracturing

Felicia Edwards

Media Writing - Hydraulic Fracturing

11/10/14

References

Golden, M. (2014, February 14). Study finds underestimated methane emissions negate industry claims of fracked gas' benefits. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from EcoWatch: Transforming Green website: http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/14/underestimated-methane-emissions-negate-fracked-gas-benefits/

The author of this article is a journalist for Stanford University. His main focus is to write about energy studies done within Stanford. Before coming to Stanford in 2011, Golden worked as a reporter for Dow Jones for 10 years and mostly wrote about natural gas and energy. His lengthy history with the gas industry makes him quite a reliable source. This article talks about levels of methane being considerable higher than the EPA initially expected. This directly correlate to new fracking plant because the gas released from the shale is methane. The article also touches upon the fact that natural gas is not always the cleanest way to burn fuel. The purpose of this articles to give the statistics about greenhouse gases in relation to methane. Methane emits thirty times more greenhouse gasses than does carbon dioxide. I don't believe this article is biased in any way because it is strictly written based on facts. This was written in an every day tone for the average citizens to be able to comprehend. This source aided me in finding outside statistics related to what fracking is emitting into the atmosphere.

Halperin, A. (2010, May). Drill, maybe drill? The American Prospect, 21(4), 16-21.

Alex Halperin is a freelance reporter from Brooklyn, New York. His work has been featured in an array of different magazines including Fortune, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor and The American Prospect which this article has been published in. This journalistic article delves into the debate over hydraulic fracturing in the New York, especially the Tompkins County, area. Halperin used this piece to inform viewers about the issues arising when property owners sign off their land to contracted gas companies. Although property owners get a large sum of money at first, they are quickly let with the environmental effects that fracking has left behind. Simultaneously the overall cost of living in that town will skyrocket as well, making it harder on the original inhabitants of the area. This article highlights the effects left on communities in Pennsylvania to predict the outcome of upstate New York if no further action is taken to change the way hydraulic fracturing is conducted. Halperin is most definitely biased towards the environmentalist's perspective. Through his belief it is apparent he is against hydraulic fracturing to spread throughout upstate New York. This article was written as an informative piece for the average, every day reader. It is very clear with the topics depicted. This source gave me a good base of knowledge. The most helpful of this article was that it is about the area in which I'm currently located in. It also highlighted opposing views for a full argument.

Holloway, M. D., & Rudd, O. (2013). Energy sustainability: Fracking: The operations and environmental consequences of hydraulic fracturing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

This author's of this book have a lengthy reputation, making them very reliable sources. The first author, Michael D. Holloway, holds a BA in Philosophy and a BS in chemistry. He has also achieved his masters in polymer engineering from University of Massachusetts. The second author, Oliver Rudd, has completed over twenty years of work as a fluid engineer in the environmental division petroleum industry and has insight to the processes of natural gas extraction of all sorts. The purpose of this book is to lay out the facts of hydraulic fracturing beyond what the media plays it off to be. This source is straight informational and not persuasive to either side. If any, the book persuades readers to think critically and come up with their own answers through educated research to not only the fracking debate, but to any debate they come across. It also clearly goes through the steps of every aspect of the fracturing process. It covers the operations, to chemicals used, to where disposal waste ends up. It is written in a very clear and conversational manner. The most distinctive part about this book is using outside examples to connect to the problem at hand. For example people believe that it is possible to view the Great Wall of China from space just because of word of mouth . This, according to the text, is just the same as stories about hydraulic fracturing. I gained a lot of information from this text. It helped me take a step back from blown-up media articles and focus on clear facts.

Howarth, R. W., Ingraffea, A., & Engelder, T. (2011, September 15). Natural gas: Should fracking stop? Retrieved November 10, 2014, from Nature website: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/477271a.html

This article was co-written by three different writers. The first author, Robert W. Howarth, is a part of the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University. The second author, Anthony Ingraffea, is a part of the school of civil and environmental engineering and Cornell University. The third author, Terry Engelder, is in the department of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. Interestingly enough within the article Howarth and Ingraffea are on the standpoint that shale fracking need to stop. Their section of the article highlights all the environmental problems and different kinds of chemicals used during the process. They even point out and highlight a majority of these chemicals violate the Safe Drinking Water Act. Next the article shift to a new title labeled the counterpoint which was written by Engelder. According to him the benefits of shale outweigh ravaging the ecosystem. I found this very interesting that they would publish both strong opposing views in one document, but this is what made is particularly interesting. This article gave me strong arguments to support each side of the debate so that in my final documentary it will be able to address both sides accurately.

Kerr, R. A. (2010, June 25). Natural gas from shale bursts onto the scene. Science, 328(5986), 1624-1626.

The author of this journal entry, Richard A. Kerr, has been a journalist for the magazine Science since 1977. With a background in both journalism and science, he is a respected senior writer with more that 1200 publish articles and was the 2006 recipient of the Geological Society of America's Public Service award as well as numerous additional honors. His article was written in 2010 so it is a bit out-date. Even though this is four years old, much of the debate has left a stalemate that makes everything written in this article still useful. This piece is very informative overview about the rise of shale drilling (hydraulic fracturing). The purpose of this source is to inform readers, and the public, about what shale drilling is and what it means for the economy and lives of the American people. There are many facts and statistics about shale drilling compared to every other conventional way of harvesting resources. A very distinctive feature of this source is that amount of statistics within it. Statistics are proven facts that cannot be argued, they are set in stone. This is why I do not believe it is biased because everything written comes with facts and numbers; it is strictly informative with no opinion. This piece was written for the average everyday reader and was easy to follow with definitions and explanations when needed. This source has given me a solid base of facts that I can use to make my documentary a lot stronger.

Kubik, P. (2013). The economic development of natrual resources: Fracking and self-regulation in the market for land. Retrieved from Journal of Arts&Humanities website: http://www.theartsjournal.org/index.php/site/article/view/99/98

The author of this text, Paul Kubik, is a professor at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. He teaches economics. Kubik took an interesting approach to writing this piece. He used the model of the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century as well as used the nineteenth century to construct his ideas. In his writing he refers to the self-regulating madness of the industrial revolution and applies it to the race to find new energy sources. The goal of this piece is to look at the present situation and apply it to the past to see how we differ and are the same from that time period. I believe the purpose of this text is to get readers to think about mistakes made in the past and take a minute to think about how those apply to contemporary times. The format of this seems very much like an essay and Kubik is trying to persuade his readers to compare this age of energy to the industrial revolution. He wants readers to wonder if we are going too fast and putting ourselves into a rut. For example child labor of the industrial revolution is like ravaging the environment. This source was helpful in getting another point of view on our contemporary problems.

Manning, P. (2012). What the frack?: Everything you need to know about coal steam gas. Sydney, Australia: New South.

What the Frack? is a book published in Australia by respected journalist and business writer Paddy Manning. Manning currently writes for the Sydney Morning Herald. In the past he has worked for The Australian and the Australian Financial Review. The focus of his writing is about both energy and agriculture. This book takes a new non-American perspective of hydraulic fracturing. The content of the book looks into fracking becoming the leading source of gas manufacturing and if it is worth all the publicity. Companies and countries are taking shale and making it into a free-for-all and the author poses the question of whether it is worth the craze for our environments sake. It also compares harvesting coal gas and shale gas. I feel like this source is biased to the environmentalist side. This was easy to read for the average person except it was written in metrics from Australia.This gave me information about the views people in another part of the world have about such a home-bound problem.

Mooney, C. (2011, October 18). The truth about fracking. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from Scientific American website: http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v305/n5/full/scientificamerican1111-80.html

Th author of this article seems very dependable as a source. Chris Mooney studied journalism at Yale university as well as written for many credible magazines including The American Prospect,The Boston Globe, and The Washington Post. Mooney also has a strong interest in science. Along with journalism, Mooney has written four books, one which includes the 2005 New York Time Best Seller The Republican War on Science. He is very much an advocate for the science and it shows thorugh his writing. The goal of his article was to address the problem of fracking contaminating water sources. Even though the process is too deep to have an effect on water sources, wells are still being contaminated and it is believed that the reason is cracks in cementing after the process. The author take a very analytical approach to allegations and claims made from both sides of the issue. This information is useful because it shows that on each side of the debate, there are flaws to the argument. The format of this source is a web page. There is even a picture to illustrate the layer of shale in relation to drinking water. The most distinctive feature about this article is that both sides are discussed and criticized for a well-rounded article through multiple series of analytical data. This was written with the average person in mind, but at the ame time the reader would have to be aware of the allegations made by each side of the debate to truly understand. This article helped clear up a lot of point in regards to actual data of events that are currently happening.

Nunez, C. (2013, November 11). Has fracking changed our future? Retrieved November 10, 2014, from National Geographic website: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/big-energy-question/how-has-fracking-changed-our-future/

The author of his article has a long list of credentials that makes her a very reliable source. As a senior producer at National Geographic, her recent project includes the "Great Energry Challenge" which is designed to get its readers interested in the energy crisis at hand. She has also worked on the "360 Energy Diet" which highlighted how the average person can reduce their carbon footprint. Along with that, Nunes has over 20 of experience as a writer, editor, and producer. The article starts by establishing what hydraulic fracturing mean in our contemporary terms. Then she discusses both negative and positive effects of fracking. The purpose of this article is strictly to inform viewers. The format of this article is most similarly to a blog entry. Being that it is an internet post, there are also interactive links. The most distinctive part about this post is that there is a poll at the end. The poll asks viewers if they believe fracking has been for better or for worse. Currently the poll stands at 59% worse and 41% better. This was written for the average reader and discussed and explained many key points that are important to the debate. This source helped me gather more positive points as well as gave me a poll to use.

Wilber, T. (2012). Under the surface: Fracking, fortunes, and the fate of the marcellus shale. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

The author of this book, Tom Wilber, has spent many years interviewing proponents on each side of the controversy over hydraulic fracturing. In addition to dedicating his time to investigative fracking reporting, he is also a journalist and teacher. In the past he has worked seventeen years as a reporter for Gannett Corporation's Central New York Newspaper group and is currently a freelance reporter for Shale Gas Review. The goal of Wilber's book is to look into the past and future marcellus shale that covers the Finger Lakes region. Specifically, it looks at the position our country is in in regards to renewable energy and oil consumption. This informative book looks into the controversy of locals wanting to keep their countryside untouched and looks at logistics of shale being a worthwhile investment to pursue. As my documentary is strongly focused on the Finger Lakes/Tompkins county region, this book is very helpful. One unique quality of this text is the narrative approach it takes between the author's experiences and those experiences of outside sources highlighted within the text. It also contains many facts, figures, and numbers. To me this text seems unbiased in the fact that the author is taking us through a journey with him to get to the answer at the end. This book was very helpful because it gave me a wealth of knowledge about the history and continuation of the shale debate as well as gave me many other points of interest to research.