Why is hydrofracking controversy

There is no question that hydraulic fracturing uses a lot of water: It can take up to 7 million gallons to frack a single well, and at least 30 percent of that water is lost forever, after being trapped deep in the shale. And while there is some evidence that fracking has contributed to the depletion of water supplies in drought-stricken Texas, a study by Carnegie Mellon University indicates the Marcellus region has plenty of water and, in most cases, an adequate system to regulate its usage.

The amount of water required to drill all of the Marcellus wells permitted in Pennsylvania in the first 11 months of would equal the amount of drinking water used by just one city, Pittsburgh, during the same period, says environmental engineering professor Jeanne VanBriesen, the study's lead author.

Plus, she notes, water withdrawals of this new industry are taking the place of water once used by industries, like steel manufacturing, that the state has lost. Burning natural gas is cleaner than oil or gasoline, and it emits half as much carbon dioxide, less than one-third the nitrogen oxides, and 1 percent as much sulfur oxides as coal combustion.

But not all shale gas makes it to the fuel tank or power plant. The methane that escapes during the drilling process, and later as the fuel is shipped via pipelines, is a significant greenhouse gas. At least one scientist, Robert Howarth at Cornell University, has calculated that methane losses could be as high as 8 percent. Industry officials concede that they could be losing anywhere between 1 and 3 percent.

Some of those leaks can be prevented by aggressively sealing condensers, pipelines and wellheads. But there's another upstream factor to consider: Drilling is an energy-intensive business. It relies on diesel engines and generators running around the clock to power rigs, and heavy trucks making hundreds of trips to drill sites before a well is completed. Those in the industry say there's a solution at hand to lower emissions—using natural gas itself to power the process.

So far, however, few companies have done that. The senator is incorrect. In the past two years alone, a series of surface spills, including two blowouts at wells operated by Chesapeake Energy and EOG Resources and a spill of gallons of fracking fluid at a site in Dimock, Pa. But the idea stressed by fracking critics that deep-injected fluids will migrate into groundwater is mostly false.

Basic geology prevents such contamination from starting below ground. A fracture caused by the drilling process would have to extend through the several thousand feet of rock that separate deep shale gas deposits from freshwater aquifers.

According to geologist Gary Lash of the State University of New York at Fredonia, the intervening layers of rock have distinct mechanical properties that would prevent the fissures from expanding a mile or more toward the surface. It would be like stacking a dozen bricks on top of each other, he says, and expecting a crack in the bottom brick to extend all the way to the top one. What's more, the fracking fluid itself, thickened with additives, is too dense to ascend upward through such a channel.

The gas is then processed, and the contaminated wastewater is taken away to be treated. Finally, after all the gas at a fracking site has been extracted, a new well is drilled, and the process begins again from scratch. Shale gas is a type of natural gas that is primarily methane. It can be used to provide energy for a broad range of processes, including cooking and domestic heating.

Shale gas is found in shale rock, which is formed when layers of mud accumulate and compress over millions of years. For the organic materials in shale rock to produce gas, they need to have been buried and heated in degree Celsius temperatures. This means that the ideal spot for shale rock to produce shale gas is around two kilometres below the surface of the earth.

Any closer to the ground, and the rock will be too cool to convert organic matter into gas. Fracking has prompted concerns from environmentalists about the impact that this process could have on the environment. Here are some of the key issues that anti-fracking protestors have identified when it comes to the negative effects of fracking:. The main problem associated with fracking is its negative impact on the environment. Using fracking instead of green energy sources is not compatible with climate-friendly energy initiatives, and fracking is much less efficient than other means of sourcing gas.

Because fracking uses such huge amounts of water the equivalent of 16 Olympic swimming pools the environmental cost of transporting it to the fracking site is significant. Not only that, but if the water is being sourced from nearby areas, it directly reduces the amount of clean water available to residents.

Some organisations claim that the water mixture pumped into shale rock contains carcinogenic chemicals. Reported speech is the discursive practice of drawing on the words of others to either support the reporting speaker's position or to criticize others. There are various kinds of reported speech, such as direct speech and indirect speech. Direct speech purportedly quotes or captures the exact words of what another said, while indirect speech conveys the propositional content of what was said but not the exact words.

He adopts the gas industry position that hydrofracking refers to just the actual fracturing of the shale, not the surrounding industrial processes associated with it also, see Dodge, , p. In both these instances of reported speech, Shepstone is criticizing what others have said. A related practice to reported speech is reported action. Instead of reporting what another said, reported action conveys what they did, their actions. For instance, Shepstone describes the actions of Josh Fox, the film maker of Gasland , an anti-fracking documentary Fox, Obviously he is being critical of these actions as reflected in his descriptions and word choice, i.

Response cries are an immediate vocal or verbal reaction to another's words or deeds. In these response cries, no words are discernable, but we hear audience noises—gasps, grumblings, inaudible heckling. Response cries are transcribed with upper-case or lower-case z's to indicate their loudness. Based on audience questions, applause, laughter, heckling, and response cries, most of the audience appears to favor the anti-fracking position. In terms of risk construction we see Shepstone's account attempting to mitigate the perception of risk by undermining the anti-fracking side's use of hydrofracking and the spurious claims associated with it.

Clearly his accounting blames the opposing side for their misleading characterization of hydrofracking. Ingraffea smiles as he responds which may cue in the audience's knowing laughter. In Ingraffea's rebuttal, less is more.

In ongoing environmental conflicts it seems there are persistent issues or points of contestation that opposing sides offer different arguments for or against. Here we have seen the gas industry's talking point on what constitutes hydraulic fracturing and opponents' criticism of that view. Next we will examine another point of contention that the anti-fracking side champions in their criticism of the gas industry, the so-called Halliburton loophole. Our interest here is in how the debate participants understand the Halliburton loophole, discursively construct it, and use it rhetorically.

Mention of the Halliburton loophole arises in response to an audience member question. AM2: Why is it that the oil and gas industry needs to have. SN: Thank you I think we understand the question. TS: I'll answer it very quickly and if John wants to add. Clean Water Act they require permits all the time.

Tony Ingraffea from in where he says there is no. Halliburton loophole and he explains it I think very fairly. SN: Thank you, a response? AI: Yes Tom I glad to hear that you're listening to some of. Energy Act of the word exemption of Clean Water, Clean.

Safe Water Drinking Act it's literally there it's. United States that is by federal law exempt. Clean Water and Clean Air Act, it's a fact. The reason being if hydrofracking is so safe, why does it need exemptions from environmental regulations? Shepstone immediately replies by denying that the industry gets any special exemptions.

He further denies that there is a Halliburton loophole. He further invokes a video of Tony Ingraffea to support his position. Given that Ingraffea is a leader on the anti-fracking side, being able to use Ingraffea's testimony to undermine the Halliburton loophole critique would be a major debate point. In response Ingraffea directly addresses Shepstone to rebut his claim. But instead of the short pithy reply of excerpt 1, here Ingraffea delivers an elaborated detailed response.

Given that Ingraffea is talking about his own talk gives him a privileged epistemic position. Indeed Ingraffea displays expertise in explaining the law and its background. This raises the epistemic question of what do the opposing sides disagree about, are they disagreeing over matters of fact or something else. As regards excerpt 1 the question turns on how narrowly hydraulic fracturing is to be defined.

In excerpt 2 Ingraffea may score a debate point against Shepstone, but he avoids addressing the proposed New York State regulations on hydrofracking. Natural gas is often cited as a transition or a bridge fuel to alternative energy sources. Opponents contend that allowing hydrofracking will slow down the move to non-fossil fuels. These competing accounts are evident in the following exchanges.

Returning to Ingraffea's response from excerpt 1, he turns from his rebuttal of Shepstone to answer the original question. Basically Ingraffea proposes a plan of shifting to non-fossil fuel energy by The focus here is on how the plan is discursively constructed and received in the course of the debate.

AI: but I just want to answer the question that was asked. I promised you that I'd only refer to peer-reviewed science. York's energy uses transportation heating and electricity. Here Ingraffea pivots from rebuttal excerpt 1 to addressing the original question from the audience member. This metadiscourse serves here as a discourse marker to signal his transition from rebuttal to his own position.

But as a preliminary to addressing this question, Ingraffea displays expertise by aligning himself with the authority of science. Then he cites the paper he co-authored and the journal. He addresses the question via indirect discourse to report the findings from the paper: it is technically and economically possible to convert all of New York's energy needs into non-fossil fuels by the year Later in the debate a question is raised by an audience member that allows the pro-fracking side to address Ingraffea's plan for alternative energy.

Most of the audience members' questions and responses have favored the anti-fracking side; this is the only one favoring the pro-fracking position. AM3: reading Given that high capital costs for current alternative energy makes it unattainable for many rural communities why should we discourage the transition to less harmful natural gas instead of being forced into a dichotomy of staying with heavy polluting coal generators or switching to expensive alternative energy putting major economic pressure on low income families.

To summarize the audience member's question, given the high costs of alternative energy, shouldn't more affordable and cleaner natural gas be allowed? An anti-fracking debater answers first challenging the premise of the question. I omit that and move on to the pro-fracking side's response. JC: Well I think it's a great question and ah I think part of. Tony mentioned that by that under some. The implied point being that natural gas is needed during this lengthy period of transition.

The argument for natural gas as a transition allows Conrad to agree on the need for non-fossil fuel energy, but also implicates for the necessity of hydrofracking during this transition. Conrad then moves to rebut Ingraffea's plan as unrealistic. The moderator then turns to let Ingraffea respond.

Ingraffea responds to both the audience member's question excerpt 4 and to Conrad's criticism excerpt 5. AI: I appreciate the question also but I also don't think. I'm quoting from a peer-reviewed publication. Ithaca was a rural community. AI does not immediately address JC's prior critique, but begins by responding to the audience member's question by challenging the premise of the question.

Ingraffea supports his challenge by drawing on a science-based source. Upon competition he pauses for dramatic effect and looks to the audience before repeating his assertion on the low cost of wind energy. But it is unlikely that AM3 had Ithaca in mind when she mentioned rural communities. The greater Ithaca area may be rural, but Ithaca itself, a college-town, is one of the most prosperous upstate communities. Ingraffea continues by shifting footings and responding to Conrad's critique.

Ingraffea eludes addressing the transition argument and the necessity for natural gas in the interim. So we see that metadiscourse provides a ready resource for debaters to draw on or summarize another's words or position, or to formulate what another said or did. Having characterized other's views one can then critique it or contrast it with one's own position. This debate saw experts offer conflicting testimony on the risks of permitting hydrofracking in New York State.

This state-of-affairs of experts disagreeing on technological controversies is not uncommon. The focus of this paper was on how debaters displayed expertise in and through their discourse and interactive moves. As mentioned above, a debate makes for a kind of performative contest among experts. Researchers also found other fracking allegations unconvincing, such as, contaminated drinking water and harmful to air quality.

Fracking was once controlled by the state. Now, fracking is controlled both by state and federal governments. The EPA stepped in to run a few tests on the water sources in fracking neighbors. The Obama Administration is imposing fracking regulations this year. Obama promises to prevent chemicals from seeping into groundwater.