Does Fracking Contribute to Global Warming?
The information and ideas reflected in the first passage clearly indicate that the author took the position against using fracking as a means for obtaining natural gas and oil. The major idea delivered through the passage is that in spite of the type of fracking used, e.g. horizontal drilling or fracturing, it loses to conventional drilling due to incredibly high numbers describing the amount of backflow liquids and/or gases that erupt through the drilling orifices. Methane gas is the worst side effect brought by fracking as it affects the greenhouse effect in a more severe manner than carbon dioxide. The second passage provides a contrary stance and suggests that replacing of the conventional drilling with fracking is possible without causing critical harm to the nature. However, the position of the second passage is based solely on the research that was conducted for a single particular fracking type, hydraulic fracturing. The passage delivers an idea that using such type of fracking would allow to meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s limits set for drilling in terms of methane gas release to the surface.
There is a lot of information provided on the issue in the first passage. Various types of fracking are mentioned, as well as the time when conventional drilling was more popular and when it was replaced with the different drilling types. The author provides detailed information on how fracking is done and what kind of consequences it could cause, methane eruptions to the surface in particular. There is another argument line which refers to the qualities of the rock that covers the potential drilling area in the course of fracking, and it differs significantly from the one found in conventional drilling. On the other hand, the second passage is supported with more actual data and refers to specific sources of information to support the statements provided in it. Particularly, a highly-paid independent study conducted at the University of Texas is used to justify the statement regarding the low level of methane gas being emitted in the atmosphere during hydraulic fracturing. There is also a reference to the representatives of one of the oil companies that participated in the research aimed at detecting the possible worsening of the global warming as a result of the new fracking methods.
The second passage and the arguments provided in it appear to be more convincing to me. The major reason for such a preference is the support of the provided facts and statements by the evidence obtained from various sources and studies. The first passage, on the contrary, resembles personal writing and does not seem to be credible enough. It is unclear where did the ideas author provided come from and whether there is any support to them. Therefore, the second passage which support fracking and proves that emissions of methane gas will not exceed the limits provided by EPA convinces me more. Moreover, it clearly explains that the gas does reach the surface, yet it is being trapped using special valves while the hydraulic fracturing method is used. Another argument in its support is the independent study sponsored by energy companies and an environmental organization, yet providing the conclusions that were absolutely unbiased. The fact that the study results were released through the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal with excellent reputation, also makes the ideas in the passage supporting fracking more appealing and plausible. Finally, an extremely powerful argument in favor of the passage supporting fracking is the duration and global spread of the study – its data was collected from 190 natural gas production locations globally over a 1-year period. Such data analysis deserves higher attention than the various researches which referred to the existing data rather than the latest one.
Research work Christopher Cloos scientist of the department of scientific research in the field of ecology and environmental protection technologies, researcher and journalist in the structure of education by subject https://quality-essay.com/
There is a lot of information provided on the issue in the first passage. Various types of fracking are mentioned, as well as the time when conventional drilling was more popular and when it was replaced with the different drilling types. The author provides detailed information on how fracking is done and what kind of consequences it could cause, methane eruptions to the surface in particular. There is another argument line which refers to the qualities of the rock that covers the potential drilling area in the course of fracking, and it differs significantly from the one found in conventional drilling. On the other hand, the second passage is supported with more actual data and refers to specific sources of information to support the statements provided in it. Particularly, a highly-paid independent study conducted at the University of Texas is used to justify the statement regarding the low level of methane gas being emitted in the atmosphere during hydraulic fracturing. There is also a reference to the representatives of one of the oil companies that participated in the research aimed at detecting the possible worsening of the global warming as a result of the new fracking methods.
The second passage and the arguments provided in it appear to be more convincing to me. The major reason for such a preference is the support of the provided facts and statements by the evidence obtained from various sources and studies. The first passage, on the contrary, resembles personal writing and does not seem to be credible enough. It is unclear where did the ideas author provided come from and whether there is any support to them. Therefore, the second passage which support fracking and proves that emissions of methane gas will not exceed the limits provided by EPA convinces me more. Moreover, it clearly explains that the gas does reach the surface, yet it is being trapped using special valves while the hydraulic fracturing method is used. Another argument in its support is the independent study sponsored by energy companies and an environmental organization, yet providing the conclusions that were absolutely unbiased. The fact that the study results were released through the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal with excellent reputation, also makes the ideas in the passage supporting fracking more appealing and plausible. Finally, an extremely powerful argument in favor of the passage supporting fracking is the duration and global spread of the study – its data was collected from 190 natural gas production locations globally over a 1-year period. Such data analysis deserves higher attention than the various researches which referred to the existing data rather than the latest one.
Research work Christopher Cloos scientist of the department of scientific research in the field of ecology and environmental protection technologies, researcher and journalist in the structure of education by subject https://quality-essay.com/
COMMENTS
ADD COMMENT
