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/dukescientistsfrackingdidnt.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 gaswell 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
onesentence 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.
Posted for A. Barker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The main thing I really enjoyed about your piece Ali, is that your use of vocabulary and the way you phrased things was in an easy way to understand. You had some 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.
ReplyDeleteTo 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.
- Charlotte Prior (D Block even)