I’ve heard of fracking before but never fully researched it. My initial thought was that fracking is too dangerous and harmful to the environment to justify. The companies which use fracking to extract natural gas have been doing a great job of preventing regulations to maximize their profits. When the chemicals used in fracking leak in to groundwater their effects are devastating on the environment and human beings. However, after further research and thought I’ve come to the conclusion that with greater regulation fracking could prove to be safer, cleaner, and more affordable than almost any other form of energy production. One cannot simply ignore the potential gains fracking could have to the US economy and in the future the energy produced may be our only life line.

It is blatantly obvious that the companies which have been using fracking to produce natural gas are trying extremely hard to prevent any type of regulations from being imposed on them. In a report by the nonpartisan group Common Cause, the natural gas industry has been pouring millions of dollars in to congress to prevent such regulations (Browning & Kapla). Just by listening to debates on the matter one can obviously see that representatives of the natural gas industry do everything they can to distort and confuse the matter. The companies will not even reveal which chemicals they are using or conduct any baseline testing. For me it is beyond a doubt that the natural gas industry is fully aware of the harmful effects on the environment but they will do whatever it takes to hide the truth from the public as long as possible in order to improve their bottom line.

You have likely heard one or more stories from individuals claiming that they have suffered health problems due to nearby fracking wells. You may have also seen people able to light their tap water on fire due to methane gas leaking in to groundwater. There was recently a report on CNN of 15 female students who all attended the same New York City high school mysteriously developing a twitching disorder which was first thought to be a stress related illness known as conversion disorder. Later it was discovered that the high school was using fracking to produce natural gas for heating and other purposes (Dr. Drew). The ground water near many fracking wells has been found to contain high level of contaminates believed to be caused by unscrupulous dumping of wastewater generated by the fracking process and above-ground spills of chemicals used in the fracking process as well. However, without baseline testing this is little more than a rumor and the natural gas industry obviously wants to keep it that way.

My opinion is that these mistakes could be largely prevented if concrete regulations were imposed by the federal government. This view has also been expressed by a panel of experts not tied to the industry who spoke to a large audience at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting (Fischetti). The potential for the natural gas produced from the fracking process is endless. Besides using the gas for heating or to produce electricity, vehicles have been developed which can directly run off the methane gas (Maguire). Also researching is being done to find an efficient way to convert the methane to methanol which would be easier to store and transport since it is a fluid (Takahashi). Methanol is actually superior to Ethanol in many ways and is currently used in Champ Cars. I don’t think the US can afford to ignore the proverbial gold mine sitting right under our feet.

In conclusion, I believe despite the disasters that have graced the headlines and have devastated small communities throughout the US, with tighter regulations fracking could become the clean abundant energy source the US and the world has been needing so desperately. The world’s supply of oil and coal will eventually run out but no one can say how long until this happens. There will come a time when the demand for energy will outweigh the supply, and I can only hope I will not be alive to see that day. Unfortunately, I am quite sure unless something very unlikely happens such as the establishment of a world government which imposes strict regulations on population growth such as the one child law in china this day will come a lot sooner than many may think. My hope is that through the extraction of natural gases this deadline will be extended beyond my lifetime. Though, this paints a very bleak picture for the human race one can only hope that by extending the deadline technology for either an endless source of renewable energy or space colonization can be developed.

Works Cited

Common Cause. November 10, 2011. James Browning & Alex Kapla. February 18, 2012 < http://www.commoncau...0NOV%202011.PDF >.
CNN. February 2, 2012. Dr. Drew. February 18, 2012 < http://www.cnn.com/v...s-leroy-hln.cnn >
BBC. August 5, 2010. John Maguire. February 18, 2012 < http://www.bbc.co.uk...ristol-10881080 >
Department of Chemistry, University of Massachuset. Unknown. Ricardo B. Met. February 18, 2012 < http://www.chem.umass.edu/~rbmetz/publications/MOchapter.pdf >
Huffington Post. June 10, 2008. Patrick Takahashi. February 18, 2012 < http://www.huffingto...l_b_106380.html >
Science America. February 18, 2008. Mark Fischetti. February 18, 2012 < http://blogs.scienti...uld-come-clean/ >
Huffington Post. February 6, 2012. Lucia Graves. February 18, 2012 < http://www.huffingto...n_1258307.html/ >

So... did you just copy and paste a five paragraph essay from a college paper assignment?

Edit: I just looked up your sources. You should strongly avoid using blogs as a source since they're not rigourously written and peer reviewed. They're like diary entries. Some of the links were broken (U of M) which looked promising but have to be discredited for technical error (you could make up a broken link). The BBC link has nothing related to fracking. The Common Cause link is your best reference but there are some concerns about bias since its politically motivated. You should look for scientific studies and use those as your references to support your arguments.

So... did you just copy and paste a five paragraph essay from a college paper assignment?

Edit: I just looked up your sources. You should strongly avoid using blogs as a source since they're not rigourously written and peer reviewed. They're like diary entries. Some of the links were broken (U of M) which looked promising but have to be discredited for technical error (you could make up a broken link). The BBC link has nothing related to fracking. The Common Cause link is your best reference but there are some concerns about bias since its politically motivated. You should look for scientific studies and use those as your references to support your arguments.

I technically went well past the requirements for the assignment. I was just suppose to read two articles the teacher linked which were one for and one against fracking. Then I was suppose to write my opinion on the matter in 1-2 pages. I honestly found the topic extremely interesting and found so many interesting things that I just wanted to include them all. I didn't even need to cite anything for the assignment.

There's a documentary out called gasland that talks about it a lot I think. It was a pretty solid read.

I loath five paragraph essays. They're utter crap and any teacher who still teaches writing by forcing students to write five paragraph essays should be fired because they're not actually teaching writing. They're teaching a formula which is supposed to result in a compelling, thought provoking essay but it's formulaic nature and rigid structure does more to harm the aspiring writer than to teach them. A good peice of writing should engage the writer in a thoughtful exploration of a topic/issue and that journey will certainly wander off the path of five paragraphs and consist of several drafts and much rumination. By constricting thoughts to a five paragraph structure, the writers ability to fully explore a topic is severely retarded.
By teaching a five paragraph essay as a format, teachers are teaching a generation of writers that this shitty writing format is actually 'good'. This is complete bullshit. I get it though. The five paragraph essay is the path of least resistance because it's really easy to teach and really easy to grade. I'm sure that a teacher instructing several classes of writers per semester, with 30 students per class, each writing five essays per semester, a five paragraph essay lends some consistency to grading papers. That doesn't forgive the fact that its a lazy or ignorant technique for teaching writing. I'd rather see a well written and thought out ten page paper which takes a semester to write than to see ten five paragraph essays writen on a weekly basis. The quality of the ten page paper would be better than the sum of all the five paragraph essays. I think the student writer would get more out of the writing process. If I were you and I was paying money for an english teacher to teach me how to write well, and he/she tells me to write five paragraph essays, I'd be storming the admin office with torches and pitchforks demanding my money back (granted, if I was a novice to writing, I wouldn't know just how harmful the five paragraph essay really is to good writing).
I think a better approach to good writing is to first critically read a bunch of various sources, engage the readings from a critical perspective, digest the arguments, facts and statements, and then form a defensible position on the topic. Then, free write a first draft detailing your position on the topic with no restriction on length or content. This is the nebulous phase of the writing process, and, much like any development process, it takes several iterations to coalese and refine the paper into its final form. At any point in the writing process, a new idea or critique may arise. It shouldn't be ignored. It should be investigated and added to the paper if its relevant and contributatory. Lastly, you'd go through every statement of fact and argument with a fine toothed comb to check for logical validity and consistency. The five paragraph essay tries to mimic the structural beauty of a well crafted paper but ends up being a generator for weak and mediocre papers.
You should never write five paragraph essays because they just aren't essays.

cut for length

Would have been convinced if this were 5 paragraphs tbh...

;)

I'd rather see a well written and thought out ten page paper which takes a semester to write than to see ten five paragraph essays writen on a weekly basis[/quote]

And instead of teaching programming by starting with if statements and for loops, it would be better for students to just submit enterprise-grade, DMCA compliant, PCI-certified logistic solution that integrates with SAP module.

[quote name='slayemin' timestamp='1329755923' post='4914839']
cut for length

Would have been convinced if this were 5 paragraphs tbh...

;)
[/quote]
trust me, I was tempted for the irony points.

And instead of teaching programming by starting with if statements and for loops, it would be better for students to just submit enterprise-grade, DMCA compliant, PCI-certified logistic solution that integrates with SAP module.

I'll give them a passing grade if they can correctly define those 3 acronyms...

[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1329841410' post='4915197']
And instead of teaching programming by starting with if statements and for loops, it would be better for students to just submit enterprise-grade, DMCA compliant, PCI-certified logistic solution that integrates with SAP module.

I'll give them a passing grade if they can correctly define those 3 acronyms...
[/quote]
Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Please Come In, and Silly Americans Play... Obviously.