The writer of this article offers a neutral opinion to the idea of hydraulic fracking, listing both facts and concerns about the process. He begins by explaining the process of hydraulic fracturing and the content of the hydraulic fluid used in the process. The pros of the fracking are given, a short list which mainly details the advantages of natural gas over coal or oil. This explanation does little to actually support the process, rather the result. The author then lists the cons, which must be divided between several categories, including the effects on water, human health, animal health, earthquakes and pollution. This expansive section of concerns, while presented with a neutral tone, show both the authors and the peoples concerns with the process. The writer also reference the EPA findings in Pavillion, Wyoming referenced in the Lustgarten article. Loopholes in environmental regulations explain how natural gas companies get away with groundwater contamination but a mention of pending legislation to close those loopholes suggest the writer supports the regulation of hydraulic fracturing. The writer concludes again in a neutral tone by stating that current EPA tests will determine the fate of the hydraulic fracturing process.
Palliser, Janna. "Fracking Fury." Science Scope n.d. 20-24. EBSCO Host. Web. 30 Sept. 2012.
I read the same Palliser article about the pros and cons of fracking. I agree that her list of pros only explained why natural gas was better than oil or coal but not the pros of the process of fracking. The con section of her writing was much longer and more in depth separating each concern into a new section. Leakoff from fracking is affecting the water sources in Pavillion, Wyoming. The neutral tone the writer kept throughout the article was beneficial so that each reader could take their own stance on the issue.
ReplyDelete