Month: March 2017

As of a few days ago, the United States is no longer the only country in the world to produce natural gas through the process of hydraulic fracking.  The United Kingdom just approved IGas to begin their first fracking well just 7 days ago (Follett).

Many people are in strong opposition of this move to allow fracking; however due to money and the release of the natural resource, the government had no choice but to allow its extraction for commercial use.  The UK is attempting to reduce its carbon footprint in the form of reducing the use of coal.  Natural gas is a better source of carbon because it is significantly cleaner when burned, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions.   Although fracking is not a perfect solution to going green, it is at least a step in the right direction toward improvement.

Interestingly enough, the government gave IGas permission to explore the land for natural gas, by doing everything up to, but not including, drilling.  There was debate over whether or not the companies should have permission to do this, and it was only allowed in certain areas (“Fracking in Lancashire…”).  Some local governments see this as an opportunity to increase the rate of collection of natural gas, but others see it as pollution on many fronts such as noise and traffic.

Although the governments may be on board with fracking now, the people are definitely not accepting this change in policy.  As you can see in the image below, there are quite a few locations of hydraulic fracking on the map.  The propaganda on the left of the map itself uses a play on words, similar to the play on words that I used in the title of this blog.  Applying this to rhetoric, the use of the play on words draws in the audience to pay attention to what the map is saying.

This map makes it very clear that there are many dangers of fracking through the use of red color and certain images on the map.

According the the United Kingdom’s governmental website, citizens of the UK need energy in every aspect of their lives.  They use it for heating, lighting, transportation, and even in the industry.  Some statistics were also provided in the article from 2015.  The statics are as follows: Over 1/3 of the UK’s energy came from natural gas, and another third from oil. Coal (13%), nuclear (7%), and renewables – mostly biomass and wind (10%) – supplied the rest (“Guidance on Fracking…”).

The locations from which natural gas comes is mainly outside countries other than the UK itself.  Just over two fifths of this natural gas came from the North Sea and Irish Sea. All of the other natural gas used by the country is imported form countries such as Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands via pipelines (“Guidance on Fracking…”).  If it is shipped, it also comes from Qatar, Algeria, Trinidad & Tobago and Nigeria as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). The government hopes to alleviate some of this dependence on other countries by allowing fracking in their own country to increase its production (“Guidance on Fracking…”).

To put numbers in perspective, Bowland-Hodder shale in northern England is some 1300 trillion cubic feet, as a central estimate (“Guidance on Fracking…”).  This is a significant amount of natural gas that can significantly reduce the UK’s dependence on foreign natural gas.

Similarly, this is the same reason that the United States is increasing fracking production within the country.  The United States wants to stop its dependence on foreign fossil fuels that come from areas of the world known to house terrorists.  This is a very popular belief to the public, and is often the origin of many pro-fracking activists.  Others, who focus on the environment, believe that There is nothing good that will come out of fracking except pollution of the ground water and air.  There is still much research that must be conducted before fracking is encouraged by all, and hated by many.  Until then, there will be a lot of controversy that cannot be eliminated regardless of the needs of the country, or the individual.

Works Cited

Follett, Andrew. “UK Starts Drilling First Fracking Wells.” The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller, 23 Mar. 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

“Fracking in Lancashire given Go-ahead by Government.” BBC News. BBC, 06 Oct. 2016. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

“Guidance on Fracking: Developing Shale Gas in the UK.” GOV.UK. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 13 Jan. 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

The most common evidence that anti-fracking protesters use is the fact that the fracking fluid is extremely toxic.  As I have previously stated, there are over 750 different chemicals that are pumped into the ground under extremely high pressures (Mellino).  Not all chemicals are bad, in that there are many other processes that require exuberant amount of chemicals.  Fracking, however, is not harmless.  Fracking uses some chemicals that are toxic to the body of all plants and animals, so toxic that they are known carcinogens.  If the chemicals do not have carcinogenic properties, then some of them are known to cause acute shortness of breath, chemical burns, blindness, or even death.

Of the 750 known chemicals used in fracking fluid, there are the same number, if not more chemicals used in the fluid that have left to be identified.  The oil companies found a loophole in governmental policies so that they only have to report a certain number, or a certain percentage, of the chemicals used.  One law, Section 313 of the EPCRA authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which is a list of toxic chemicals available to the public that must be reported annually by specific industries and facilities (“Chemicals & Public Disclosure.”).  Luckily for the gas and oil companies, they are not included under this TRI, which means under this law they are not obligated to release the contents of their fracking fluid at full disclosure to the public.

The companies, however, did run into difficulty when Josh Fox made the production Gas Land.  This film exposed some of the harmful effects of fracking, specifically the leakage of fracking fluid into the ground water supplies of locals.  This was seen when he put a match close to the water pouring out of a sink, and the water “caught on fire”.  The key in this situation is not that the water itself caught on fire, but that the contents, or contaminants, inside the water caught on fire.  These contaminants could be some of the methane (natural gas) that the fracking is used to produce.  When there is a leak in the concrete piping, the contents, including the natural gas, can leak into the groundwater supply.

Following the production of this documentary, many decided to attempt to debunk the validity of the film in order to justify the means of the gas companies.  One source claimed that Fox overexaggerated all of the facts that he used in order to create a greater impact (“GasLand.”).  People would be more weary of the gas companies and hopefully prevent them from drilling in their local land.  For sure, Josh Fox was an advocate of the environment, and the debunking articles are backing the gas companies hoping to keep them in business.

After the production of the second GasLand production, GasLand 2, there were more reliable sources that claimed Fox was exaggerating to an extreme, where much of what he was saying was invalid.  Forbes wrote an article claiming that Fox was a Technophobe, and was working against the natural progress of the world (Epstein).  Many argue that Fox was not against fracking itself, but against the way that fracking is completed in current times.  Wind and solar power can go on forever and does not affect the environment negatively whatsoever.  Fracking, however, has its positive aspects such as releasing trapped natural gas from deep in marcellus shale formations, but the negatives outweigh the positives for now.  Until the positives begin to outweigh the negatives, it is unlikely there will be the support necessary for fracking to continue without resistance.  Many sources claim that fracking is becoming safer for the environment; however, until this point it is unlikely fracking will gain the attention that it needs to continue producing large quantities of natural gas.

There is great promise for the fracking process, but as of now, there are too many negative aspects that are more popular than the positive aspects of extracting natural gas.

Works Cited

“Chemicals & Public Disclosure.” FracFocus: Chemical Disclosure Registry, GWPC & IOGCC, 2017, fracfocus.org/chemical-use/chemicals-public-disclosure. Accessed 15 Mar. 2017.

Epstein, Alex. “Gasland II’s Luddite Slander Of ‘Fracking’ Is The Latest Technophobe Attack On Progress.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 19 July 2013, www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/07/19/gasland-iis-luddite-slander-of-fracking-is-the-latest-technophobe-attack-on-progress/#5906b37d3187. Accessed 15 Mar. 2017.

“GasLand.” Documentary Case Studies: Behind the Scenes of the Greatest (True) Stories Ever Told, doi:10.5040/9781501300349.ch-007. Accessed 15 Mar. 2017.

 

The deliberation that I decided to attend was about safe sex and sexual abuse.  I chose this topic because I thought it was one of the most relevant topics here on a college campus.  In addition to the students, I thought one of the best parts of the deliberation was the involvement of the audience.  There was one specific individual that I felt added very important information to the deliberation.  I will talk more about the specifics of this individual.

The first approach for this deliberation was very important.  Since there are a lot of terms in relation to sexual violence, the definitions set the background that was needed for the other approaches to build off of.  These definitions, ranging in source, were very specific.  For example, the definition of rape was extremely specific.  Many of these definitions I was unaware of because I did not know the specific definition for each act committed.

The other approaches were very interesting because they involved the students on campus, as well as the campus administration.  One of the most interesting aspects to these approaches, for me, were some of the notification systems that I had never heard of.  In addition to the text messages that I get, the “Timely Warnings”, there are two other main sources of notification.  The fact that I have never heard of them made me wonder the purpose of these notifications.

One of the discussions revolved around the frequency in which the notifications are sent out.  There are multiple warnings sent out every week, sometimes every day.  This seems to decrease the severity of the impact that the warnings have on students.  The higher the frequency that the alerts are sent out, the less people seem to notice them.  This has a negative effect, and it makes me wonder whether the warnings should be sent out at the frequency that they are.

The police officer that attended the deliberation brought up a very interesting topic, the university is obliged to notify all students and staff when there is a report.  Regardless when the act occurred, the notification must be sent out.  Furthermore, most people do not want to admit all of the information, and the qualities of the individuals are all “unknown”.  Here is an example of a common report.

Race: Unknown

Sex: Unknown

Height: Unknown

Weight: Unknown

Hair Color: Unknown

Eye Color: Unknown

Age: Unknown

Additional Description: No physical descriptors of the suspect were provided.

Since there is no actual information provided in these reports, most people pay no attention to the reports.  Again, this decreases the impact of the notifications which is counter productive.  Overall, this deliberation opened my eyes to the specific types of sexual harrassments, by putting the specific name to the act.  Furthermore, it was interesting to hear the point of view of the students directly before and after the information provided by the police officer – an official.