Methane can likewise prompt ground water bringing about a genuine danger to individuals' wellbeing, something that must be more controlled and checked upon. As indicated by Dictionary.com, a narrative is a motion picture, or a TV or radio program that gives a verifiable record or report, comprising official pieces and sources. There are constantly two sides to a story and afterward there is a truth. "Gasland" is a narrative film by Josh Fox specifically exploring into the residential common gas industry and its overwhelming effects on the earth and human wellbeing. Then again, "Fracknation" is a narrative film that assaults claims by the counter fracking film "Gasland" whose movie producers pulled in national regard for water quality worries by setting faucet water ablaze. Rather, they go more top to bottom attempting to get the genuine accurate answers of the circumstances and end results hydraulic fracking prompts. A narrative is a film that must be demonstrated accurate, be that as it may, as indicated by "Fracknation": a great deal of the data observed in "Gasland" is turned out to be false…
When watching the documentary "Gasland" by Josh Fox , I have had no prior knowledge of what Fracking truly was. I have to say though as this documentary was in full swing I couldn't keep my eyes off the screen. As I couldn’t believe after watching this film what fracking was. I thought fracking was insanely harmful to not only animals , humans and the property they both live on as well. It did two very different things when it came to animals and humans. When it comes to the animals they were the ones that had no choose but to drink it so they were not only dying because of it but they also had hair lose, and are unable to eat be as well. This is terrible for the farmers cause they now cannot breed this cow or this pig , they now cannot…
They are concerned that millions of gallons of contaminated wastewater are produced from fracking methods and that there are currently no facilities operating to remove these pollutants. When separated by a mile or more from groundwater sources and the earth’s surface, the ancient marine waters along with naturally existing toxic compounds are not an issue, but “Fracking disturbs, distributes, and carries upward with the fracked gas ‘produced waters’ containing radioactive materials, heavy metals, hydrocarbons such as BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and toluene [sic.]), bromide, highly concentrated salts, and many other organic and inorganic compounds that, when exposed to our environment, are dangerous health hazards—many are known as carcinogens and toxic to biological life” (Carluccio “Destroying Our Groundwater” Para. 1). Which brings up the question of why can’t they use less toxic chemicals in the fracking process? Tracy Carluccio, the Deputy Director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, continues by stating, “even if companies were to switch to ‘green’, ‘non-toxic’ fracking fluids, drilling and fracking in these deep formations will always deliver potentially deadly chemical hazards, even in a perfectly regulated world” (Carluccio “Destroying Our Groundwater” Para. 1). The cement and steel casings used in combination with the methods for sealing post-production gas wells do not confine the methane along with other dangerous gases and contaminated fluids that are pressurized within the aquifer.…
Hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, is a 60 year old practice of pumping high pressure water into shale rock thousands of feet below the earth’s surface. The pressurized water is pumped through cement encased pipes at pressures reaching 9000 pounds per square inch. The treated water is forced into small cracks in the gas-rich shale rock, resulting in the breaking of the rock and the release of natural gas that would otherwise be unobtainable. Hydraulic fracturing is a safe, economically efficient way to drill for natural gas, create jobs, and lessen America’s dependency on foreign oil.…
This film was very interesting and helpful because in my earth science class I am giving a group presentation of Hydro-fracking, and although I discovered in my research how harmful it can be, seeing personal accounts of it gave me a better feel on the subject. I think we need to come up with a better way to get natural gas out rock because injecting chemical fluid into the ground is too risky pertaining to our water supply. After all, we need water to survive. I agree that it is a problem that we are depending on what one legislature calls "foreign oil and terrorism," but I would rather keep depending on these resources then polluting our water supply and turning American land into nasty dumps. From this film and the group project I participated in for class, I have learned that our water can be easily contaminated. Fracking needs to be a careful process that should be done nowhere near major water sources are located.…
There is nothing fictitious about the arguments in fracking. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a way of obtaining oil and gas through the practice of cracking open rocks at high pressures using water, sand, and various chemicals (Jackson, 2016, para. 1). All over America, numerous interest groups participate in a continuous debate on the ethics of this procedure. Two prominent documentaries that circulate the media are FrackNation by Phelim McAleer and Gasland by Josh Fox. Each documentary presents its view of pro-fracking and anti-fracking, respectively through a series of various logical fallacies. FrackNation efficiently refutes the claims of Gasland through the effective use of logical fallacies.…
These people were going through many problems like they could not use tap water due to hazardous contamination present in the tap water, their pets are chemically burned, they were getting sick and some of them could not even step out of their houses due to polluted air. But their main problem was nobody who actually could help or could make difference would listen to them. In this kind of situation their voice being heard by the entire nation was half battle won and Fox does exactly that for them. However I was little disappointed when I did research to verify the validity of supporting evidence presented in the movie. Only somewhat credible evidence shown is the EPA representative, however, he doesn’t make a formal statement hence does not contribute in a meaningful way. Another piece of evidence he used was lab reports of the fluid in the jar that was handed to him by an unknown person who could have possessed if from anywhere. Since this source was not trustworthy, Fox should not have been used the result to support his theory that fracking is reason of contamination. Fox claimed that chemicals used in fracking polluted the river with dead fish; but according to Energytribune, even before Gasland was shot, EPA reported that it was due to toxic build up, the result of discharges from coalmines. It is true that there are some…
The movie Gaslands: Part II highlights the many problems with fracking for natural gas in the United States. It starts by showing the support of politicians and President Barack Obama himself. Gradually, the movie starts to show the wrongs that the oil companies are committing while fracking. The natural gas is so profitable that the injustice seems like a minor setback in the quest for the end results. Throughout the movie, it shows how families are affected, and just how spread out these families are throughout the country, which goes to show the extent to which the country is affected.…
I knew that fracking was a contentious issue to say the least, and I have always held some degree of disdain towards big oil companies so I cannot say I was unbiased at the outset. My initial perception while watching Gasland was that this industry might actually help the communities mentioned in the film, however, I changed my tack very quickly when I began to think about how fracking makes inequality even worse, a sad truth, but an evident one. In that way, my perception of communities affected by fracking was unjustified and wrong. Though my perception of fracking communities was wrong, my perception of oil companies was galvanized further. It is obvious that these massive corporations are only out for profit, which is an obvious truth, but one that is hugely important. They do not care about who they are driving out of their homes, what they are doing to vulnerable communities or what happens when they leave. The bottom line is the only thing that matters and if worsening inequality is the price, then they have no problem paying it. My perception of people paid off by these companies is harmful because my initial thought was that this was a good thing for less fortunate people, when it clearly is not. The mistake in my perception of big oil companies is that the damage caused cannot be reversed, and that they are unstoppable, when the power to stop them is very much in the hands of the average person. The environmental effects are no doubt horrible, but I feel as though the social effects must be discussed more in order to make the changes necessary to put an end to…
In the U.S., there are more than 500,000 active natural gas wells. Each of these wells requires 400 tanker tucks in order to carry water as well as supplies to the site where fracking will occur. For each of these individual fracking jobs, 1 to 8 million gallons of water is used. About 40,000 gallons of chemicals (per one fracturing job) are used and mixed with the water to create the "fracking fluid." What people do not know, is that up to 600 different chemicals are used in this "fracking fluid," including known toxins and carcinogens such as lead, mercury, uranium, ethylene glycol, radium, methanol, hydrachloric acid, and formaldehyde. These chemicals are known to cause cancer and other health problems. 72 trillion gallons of water and 360 billion gallons of these cancerous chemicals are needed to run our current gas wells.…
The modern environmental justice movement began in the mid- 20th century, when the country realized that the environment needed help. This movement throughout the last several decades has evolved from protecting woodland areas from deforestation to protection against the gas industry. Hydraulic fracturing is the process by which natural gas is extracted from the earth’s shales. The process begins with drilling through several layers of the earth, like the freshwater aquifer. Next, water with “fracking fluid” is injected into the drilled area to crack the shale. This water comes back up to the surface and is put into a pit to evaporate. The natural gas flows up, and is then stored. The process is simple enough, but so are the consequences. Hydraulic fracturing has detrimental environmental consequences and should be banned.…
Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is damaging our watersheds and for some of us, fracking sites are in our own backyards. The Environmental Protection Agency seems to have a few holes in it, as you will see in my research. First, we need to understand how fracking works. It is a means of extracting natural gas and oil that lies within a shale rock formation thousands of feet below earth’s surface. When a well is drilled, millions of gallons of water, sand and all different chemicals are injected under high pressure, into the well. With all the pressure, it causes mini earthquakes, fracturing the ground and allowing natural gas to flow more freely. These wells are in locations that were previously inaccessible, ruining our beautiful countryside and being drilled below our reservoirs and water systems. Horizontal fracking uses a mixture of up to 600 different chemicals along with water. Some of these chemicals are known carcinogens and toxins including lead, uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, radium, methanol, hydrochloric acid and formaldehyde. Let’s do the math; 500,000 active gas wells in the U.S, multiply that by 8 million gallons of water, multiply the 18 times a well can be fracked. That comes to 72 trillion gallons of water, 360 billion gallons of chemicals needed to run current gas wells. (dangersoffracking.com)…
ZOOM As time has evolved we have seen the consumption of energy rise, thus also raising the need for more fossil fuels. One popular method as of the 1940’s would be hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking. Fracking has been proven to be a lucrative business nearly accounting for more than half of the oil extraction in the US as stated by Source C. While fracking is a useful method of retrieving fossil fuels it can also prove to be detrimental to our everyday lives. The world isn’t blind to the dangers of fracking as many countries in Europe have already taken steps to ban fracking which is stated in Source A.…
Water is one of our important resources that were given to us by mother nature. We see water as a source for survival and many more advantages. It's fragile, and the smallest amount of contaminants could ruin it for a population, yet one of the major ingredients in fracking processes is the water. Reports of accidents involving water contamination are everywhere. The basic process of fracking is its uses of incredible amounts of gallons of water per drill and drilling so close to groundwater sources risk contamination. "Accidents have already been documented and citizen's well waters have been tainted with toxic chemicals", according to the Climate Progress. (Foster) Many of the chemicals used in the fracking process are proven toxins. These include benzene, ethyl-benzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene, and other hazardous chemicals that are harmful if any contact is made.…
Although this process is an affective way to produce the natural resources from the earth, there are repercussions that are being ignored by the well companies. For instance, there were several private wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania contaminated with methane caused by the fracking done by Cabot Oil and Gas. The people living off these wells were not able to use their water. Although the gas company denied any kind of fault, they compensated the residents financially and built a new pipeline to bring clean water in. In December, 2011 the EPA sent out letters to the residents telling them their water was safe to drink. But in January of 2012 the EPA retracted its position and told the gas company to immediately take care of the problem.…