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.