The Proposed Ideas:
One idea that has sprung up is the idea of “waterless fracking”. The idea, admittedly, sounds a bit odd when one thinks about fracking. Just about every description of fracking states that pressurized water is necessary to break apart the shale rock containing oil and gas. However, several companies, including Snyder Farm Group in New York state, are currently experimenting with a propane gel and sand mixture that would be injected into the drill site as a replacement for pressurized water (Fox News. “Can waterless fracking in New York side-step Cuomo’s ban?”). Such an innovation would eliminate the need for water to not only be trucked in from elsewhere, but from being used at all.
However, not all companies may adopt waterless fracking. Although, a second proposal would be to simply use recycled water for the fracking process. Critics of fracking often point out that the industry uses large amounts of fresh water. Such water, they argue, is incredibly precious to the environment and human well being. However, a solution may very well be on the way. According to National Geographic Magazine, “(Oil and gas) industry researchers have worked to perfect friction-reducing additives that would allow operators to use recycled "gray" water or brine pumped from underground” (National Geographic. “Green Fracking?”).
Finally, the chemicals being used in the fracking process could be changed altogether. Critics of fracking argue that the industry uses toxic chemicals in the drilling and harvesting process. New chemical discoveries, however, could eliminate such harmful agents. Patricia Waldron of Inside Science reports that, “Halliburton, a prominent producer of fracking fluids, presented a product called CleanStim. The product contains chemicals approved for use in the food industry, such as an enzyme found in soybeans and partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.” (Inside Science. “In Search of Greener Fracking for Natural Gas”). If products like CleanStim could be implemented throughout the industry, the use of traditional, less environmentally friendly chemicals could be cut down substantially.
Re-Edited Selection:
The Proposed Ideas:
One idea that has sprung up is the idea of “waterless fracking”. The idea, admittedly, sounds a bit odd when one thinks about fracking. Just about every description of fracking states that pressurized water is necessary to break apart the shale rock containing oil and gas. However, several companies, including Snyder Farm Group in New York state, are currently experimenting with a propane gel and sand mixture that would be injected into the drill site as a replacement for pressurized water (Fox News. “Can waterless fracking in New York side-step Cuomo’s ban?”). Such an innovation would eliminate the need for water to not only be trucked in from elsewhere, but from being used at all. This means that operators will not need to spend large sums of money to obtain the millions of gallons necessary to operate a well. As well, groundwater supplies will not be drained to the extent that they have been.
However, not all companies may adopt waterless fracking. Although, a second proposal would be to simply use recycled water for the fracking process. Critics of fracking often point out that the industry uses large amounts of fresh water. Such water, they argue, is incredibly precious to the environment and human well being. However, a solution may very well be on the way. According to National Geographic Magazine, “(Oil and gas) industry researchers have worked to perfect friction-reducing additives that would allow operators to use recycled "gray" water or brine pumped from underground” (National Geographic. “Green Fracking?”). This innovation, much like waterless fracking, would cut down significantly on operating costs and impact to local water supplies.
Finally, the chemicals being used in the fracking process could be changed altogether. Critics of fracking argue that the industry uses toxic chemicals in the drilling and harvesting process. New chemical discoveries, however, could eliminate such harmful agents. Patricia Waldron of Inside Science reports that, “Halliburton, a prominent producer of fracking fluids, presented a product called CleanStim. The product contains chemicals approved for use in the food industry, such as an enzyme found in soybeans and partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.” (Inside Science. “In Search of Greener Fracking for Natural Gas”). If products like CleanStim could be implemented throughout the industry, the use of traditional, less environmentally friendly chemicals could be cut down substantially. This would lead to significant environmental improvements and eliminate the potential for toxic chemical spills both at the surface level and in underground aquifers near the drill site.
- How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
The content changed significantly. One of the main suggestions in peer review was that I expand upon my direct quote explanations. When I did this, I found that my argument was strengthened overall. Instead of just quoting the innovations being discussed, I tried to explain them somewhat before my third body section (where I explain WHY they are so great).
- How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
The essay was made just a tad longer by this edit. However, when I edit the rest of my essay, it could be substantially longer; perhaps a half a page to a page longer. As well, the quote explanations worked to solidify my body sections main point: the proposed ideas and what they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment