Blog Phase 5

Article 1
The Associated Press.(2013,March,20).Both Sides Agree on Tough New Fracking Standards. 
Penn Live
            3/23/13
This article was talking about what is currently going on with the policies that surround fracking in the Marcellus Shale natural gas deposits currently. It basically is stating that there has been some progress for both sides of the issue. Those who are for fracking and those who oppose it, but not all who oppose it. As of right now it looks like big oil and gas companies like Shell and Chevron have been able to come to some type of agreement with environmentalists about the current policies placed on fracking and making improvements on them. They have sat down together and come up with some policies that are stricter than the current federal regulations placed on this type of technology. As of right now companies are encouraged to submit to a independent review of their practices. The goal of this is to get the different companies to agree to adhere to these policies and make them common practice in order to protect the environment while at the same time not slowing down progress.

One of the main things that stood out to me in this article is that the two sides are trying to work together and compromise in order to help both sides achieve their goal. It surprised me because it seems like these two sides were destined to always oppose the other and never really make any progress towards a solution that makes both sides happy. Some of the further questions I had after reading this article that are worth investigating have to deal with exactly how much stricter are these policies compared to the ones in place now and how fast do they think they can get them in place.

Article 2
Zak Zatezalo.(2013,March,29). Their View: Plenty of Hype for New Fracking Standards, but Where's the Teeth?. The West Virginia Record
            3/29/13
This article disagreed with my first source. He basically pointed out that the information he has found on these new standards aren't even close to being as comprehensive as standards that have been in place in Texas and Louisiana for decades. He asks who is going to enforce them. Furthermore if these are a lists of voluntary standards that a company trying to make money has to abide by than how will they be effective. I can see where he is coming from and think that he is making a good point. Saying progress is being made towards a more environmentally conscious type of drilling plan with no way to enforce it and or make people follow it may not even be progress at all. This is something that I will be following to see what ends up happening with it.

Blog Phase 4

Assessing Credibility

First Source

Bernard D, Goldstein, Jill Kriesk, Barbara Pavliakova.(2012,April). Missing From the Table. Environmental Health Perspectives
           3/22/13

The first source I looked at was published on April 2012. It has not been revised since then. The topic I am covering requires mostly current information, at least within the last 5 years. I checked their links and they are functional. The information presented in this article answers some questions about natural gas drilling and its potential effects. The authors intended audience is anyone who wants to know more about the methods used to extract natural gas from shale formations and concerned about its safety. I believe this article is written at a good level for me and understandable. Before looking at this source I searched a couple more and this one seemed the best out of all of them. I would be comfortable citing this article in a research paper.

The authors of this article where Bernard D. Goldstein, Jill Kriesk, and Barbara Pavliakova. The source it came from was Environmental Health Perspectives.Their affiliations included the Graduate School of Public Health and the University of Pittsburgh. These people were qualified to write this article. At the bottom of the article there was even an email address to contact Bernard D. Goldstein. Most of the sources this article has cited are from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and other organizations that are researching natural gas drilling. They back up some of their claims with proof because this article is basically about potential hazards that are not currently being monitored or restricted. This information seems to line up with previous knowledge I have. The language seems pretty unbiased for the most part. I didn't notice any spelling or typographical errors either.

The purpose of this article is basically to inform people of what is really going on with this issue. I don't believe the authors make their intentions exactly clear. The information they are presenting are facts all of their data and the fact that these concerns are currently not a concern for our policy makers. I believe their point of view is somewhat objective towards being against fracking. There are however no biases that I picked up on.

Second Source
Alison Rose Levy. (2012, November 30). 4 Horrifying Dangers of Fracking. Alternet
            3/22/13
The second article I found was posted on November 30th 2012. The information has not been updated since then. The topic I am researching requires mostly information from the last 5 years. The links were also functional. The information relates to my topic question a little but not a lot. This article is intended for anyone who wants to know why hydraulic fracturing is bad. It is written at an appropriate level for me to understand. Before finding this one I browsed a few other sources. I would not want to cite this in my research paper. The author of this article is Allison Rose Levy. The article was published in partnership with GlobalPossibilities.org and is sponsered by Alternet. Her credentials basically are that she is a blogger who talks about health, food, and the environment and she has a weekly radio show. I don't believe the author is qualified to write on this topic. There is however an email address that you can use to contact her.

She doesn't say where she is getting her information from. Some of the information is supported by evidence. This article has not been reviewed or refereed. I can verify some of this information is correct while other parts of it are more concerns of things that may happen as opposed to something that is happening. I believe the language and tone is of more of the biased nature. I believe the purpose of this information is used to persuade people against fracking. I also believe that the title makes the purpose very clear on what this article is going to be about. The information being presented here is very serious concerns but she is using them more as propaganda and truths. I don't believe her viewpoint seems impartial. I also believe there is a great deal of personal bias in the way she wrote this article.

Conclusion

I believe that the first article I found through the libraries database was more credible than the one I found by doing a Google search. The one from the database had real information and citations telling you were they got that information. While the other article seemed biased and presented information without telling you where it came from.

Blog Phase 3

Article 1 Natural Gas - Bridge to the Future

Chris Larson. (2010, July). Natural Gas-Bridge to the Future?. from Today's Science Database

      3/4/13

This article seemed to be in favor of natural gas despite some of the problems it brought to light.  The author seems to justify the risks associated with the process to get natural gas by say it could be a bridge to the future.  He does however bring up some concerns such as the reliance on shale formations (formations deep underground that hydraulic fracturing technology has let us attain natural gas from) that are there but may be to deep. The author does discuss some of the controversies associated with this drilling technology such as poisoned water tables, earthquakes, and many other possible unforeseen consequences. He ends it by trying to justify all the possible problems and controversies by saying that we can just use it as a transition fuel until we get to renewable energies.

Article 2 Hydrofracking

Hydrofracking. (2011,October 31). Retrieved 3/5/13 from Issues and Controversies Database

The article started off by the author explaining to you how fracking technologies have come about and what they are. It states the problems and dangers associated with this technology and simply that most of those dangers are that we just don't know yet. There is a section that explains how people are calling for federal oversight which as of right now is still lacking. People who support this technology say it is safe and good for the economy. People who oppose it say we still don't know what the long term affects could be so we shouldn't just jump on board and start drilling everywhere. In the end I think this article casts a dark shadow over fracking making it seem kind of scary.

The reason I chose these articles is because these are the two viewpoints I hear in every discussion I have had about this topic. People who oppose simply because of the possibility we might be overlooking something or it just hasn't happened yet. Then there are people who say it is completely  safe and nothing to worry about. They usually end up with the same conclusions, that even if it isn't the best for us and our planet, it can keep us less dependent on oil while we make the switch to alternatives.

I believe so far i have a pretty good grasp of this subject. Simply due to the fact that I have prior knowledge of this controversy. I haven't generated any new questions yet for this topic. I am however interested to see if the have found any new information out from continued research on fracking and horizontal drilling since I last researched it.