Tixe 1

Katherine Tixe
Connie Douglas
ENG 112-08
26 March, 2015
Biello, David. "Cheap Fracked Gas Could Help Americans Keep on Truckin'" Scientific
American Global RSS. N.p., 23 Apr. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
The article is about how trucks can benefit from fracking. The article talks about how fracked gas
is cheaper than fuel made from petroleum. The main argument is that fracked gas is cleaner
energy than burning coal and that it can help bring the nations grown stock of natural gas to fuel
tanks. The point of the article is to talk about how trucks can become cleaner by using fracked
gas, and how beneficent it is to the environment and to the economy. The topics covered are
cleaner energy fuel, fracked gas stations, and gas vehicles.
The article views fracking in a positive way and it backs up by showing the example of how
trucks can use fracked gas and be cleaner. The source was useful because it gave a positive
outlook on fracking. This article can compare to the other articles that as for fracking like
Howarths article. The information is reliable because the article is from the In-Depth Report for
Alternative Energy and the Future of Our Fuels. The source is very objective because it claims
that natural gas is a cleaner source of energy. The goal of this article is to show how natural gas
has taken effect on trucks and natural gas fuel tanks.
The article was helpful because it discusses how fracked gas is cheap and cleaner. This article
helps shape my argument for that fracking is cleaner than burning coal. I can use this article

Tixe 2
toward my research project by using the example of trucks with a build in gas engine can take
cheap fracked gas and save about one third of his energy spend by switching to natural gas. It has
not changed how I view the topic I still think fracking is dangerous, this article talks about how
its clean energy but at the same time fracking can release methane in the air we breathe which is
a toxic chemical.
"Fracking: The Dangers | Clean Water Action." Fracking: The Dangers | Clean Water Action.
Take Action, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
The main argument that the article is the dangers of fracking. The article points that fracking uses
toxic chemicals cocktail known as fracking fluids, fracking removes millions of gallons of
precious freshwater from the water cycle, and fracking causes a range of environmental
problems. Topics that are covered in the article are fracking and the dangers. The article is
mainly about the clean water action and how fracking is dangerous.
This source is from the Clean Water Action webpage and is fairly short but includes very useful
facts. The source is useful because it backs up their main points. I would compare this article and
ass to the arguments that are against fracking. The information is reliable it is an org website.
This source is objective because it uses facts. The goal of the source is to inform the people of
the dangers of fracking and how water is wasted.
This source was helpful to the research. It helps shape the argument of how fracking is
dangerous. This article can be used toward the research by including information of how millions
of water is wasted because of fracking. It has not changed the perspective of the topic because
the research mainly leans towards how fracking is dangerous.
GasLand. By Josh Fox. Netflix, 2010. Online.

Tixe 3
The documentary is about a man named Josh Fox that goes on a journey to investigate fracking
and interviews the people who live near the drilling sites after a natural gas company offered Fox
$100,000 to frack in his land. The main argument is that citizens in the documentary complain
about the water, air pollution and health problems they have ever since the company started to
drill in their area. The point of the documentary is to show how the people that live near the
drilling sites affect them and the environment. The topics that are covered is fracking and the
process, fracking regulations, chemicals in fracking fluids, health risks and water contamination.
The documentary is an excellent way to evaluate and show the people being interviewed that are
affected by fracking. The film is useful since they cover all of the problems of fracking and the
voices of the citizens that are against it. It compares to most of the articles that are against
fracking. The information is somewhat reliable but overall trustworthy. The source is both bias
and objective because in the film Fox interviews a lot of families that have very heavily opinions
on fracking. But it also shows the facts and documentation of chemicals found in the families
drinking water. The goal of this film is to show how fracking can heavily impact families and
that as humans we need to preserve nature.
This film was very helpful and emotional to see how bad fracking can destroy families and
damage the environment. It helps shape the argument that families are impacted in a negative
way and proven that water contamination came from fracking. I can use this source towards the
research project by showing examples and small video clips of what the families are exposed to.
This film has changed how I view the topic and feel strongly knowledgeable of fracking.
Glauser, Wendy. "New Legitimacy to Concerns about Fracking and Health." Canadian Medical
Association.Journal 186.8 (2014): E245-6. ProQuest. Web. 7 Apr. 2015.

Tixe 4
This article is about how hydraulic fracturing is harmful to a persons health. The article talks
about how fracking has many health issues, but air pollution can be a bigger threat than water
contamination. For example, the article talks about how these deadly toxins released in the air
can be potently fatal to children. The main arguments are that fracking can cause air pollution
and that can be more harmful than water contamination. The points that this article covers are
water contamination, industry response, and air pollution.
This article has many of the same information as the other articles but goes more into depth on
how air pollution is a bigger threat to a persons heath. The source was useful it includes a lot of
studies scientist had evaluated over 10 years that prove that fracking causes air pollutions and
produce airborne chemicals. It can compare to the other sources because it shows the dangers
towards health due to fracking. The information is very reliable it has been peer reviewed. The
source is objective and bias because it sticks to the same point on how fracking is bad. In
addition, its bias because many of the scientists make the claim that air pollution due to fracking
has a bigger threat than water contamination. The goal of the article is to inform the public of the
air pollution and the airborne chemicals due to fracking and how dangerous these chemicals are.
This source talks about many things but most importantly on how air pollution has taken an
effect on the people who live near the drillings due to fracking and that can be really helpful
towards the research. This article helps shape the argument that there are different dangers to
fracking and water contamination is a big one, but air pollution and airborne chemicals are
dangerous too. This source can be used to describe one of the dangers of fracking and that is air
pollution. This article has changed my mind on how I view fracking; it seems like every time I
do more research on fracking it leans towards how bad it really is, but not just to the environment
but to everyones health around where they frack for natural gas.

Tixe 5
Hasemyer, David. "Voices and Votes Against Fracking Rang Out and Racked Up in 2014."
Voices and Votes Against Fracking Rang Out and Racked Up in 2014. N.p., 21 Dec.
2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.
The main arguments of this article is that even oil rich places such like Texas take a stand and are
against fracking. The point of the article is to show how fracking has so many voices are against
fracking. The article covers many point such as the gathering voices of outrage, safety , and
dangers of fracking. The article Is mainly about the voices and votes that are against fracking
rang out in Texas.
The source is from inside climate news and seems very opinionative since it has many opinions
of the citizens living in Texas. The source could be useful because its an example of taking a
stand against fracking in Texas. I could compare this to other sources because its the voices of
the people about fracking and what they think about it. The information is reliable; it comes from
an org website. The source is very bias since its very opinionative towards not letting the oil
and gas companies drill in Texas. The goal of the source is to hear all the voices that are against
fracking.
The source was a bit helpful. It helps shape the argument by using Texas as an example. This
souce could be used in the research project by demonstrating all voices and showing the health
and sanitary dangers of fracking. It has not changed the perspective of the research because
instead its helping back up that fracking is a serious issue that Texas has confronted.
Howarth, Robert W., Anthony Ingraffea, and Terry Engelder. "Should Fracking Stop?" Nature
477.7364 (2011): 271-5. ProQuest. Web. 8 Apr. 2015.

Tixe 6
This article is about fracking and if it should be stop. The article points out that extracting gas
from shale increases the availability of this resource, but the health and environmental risk may
be too high. The article gives to sides that agree and point out that yes, its too high risk to
continue fracking and the counterpoint is that no, and its too valuable. The main arguments are
how environmentally dangerous fracking is and how economic benefits overweight the
environmental risks. The points in this article are the views of fracking and how its a cost to the
environment and how valuable fracking is. The topics being covered in this article are air
pollution, water contamination, chemicals in fracking, and economic benefits.
Overall this article has very good backup to both sides of their claim if fracking should be
stopped. The source was very useful because it introduced new information on how the fracking
industry changed over time. This source compares to many of the other sources that lean towards
anti-fracking. But it also talks about the benefits of fracking and plans to improve fracking
technology to make it cleaner. The information presented in this article is reliable since it was
peer reviewed. The source is very objective to both sides of the claim. The goal of the article was
to show both sides whether fracking should be stopped.
The article was helpful to me and helped me get a better look on the positives of fracking. It
helps shape the argument on how fracking is dangerous but also the lack fracking technology and
improvements that should be made. I can use this article towards my research to show that the
fracking industry before was actually cleaner than modern fracking technology since the
approach for natural gas is bigger and riskier. The article hasnt changed much on how I view the
topic, even though half of the article talked about how fracking isnt all that bad, it still lacked
since they just pointed out that it isnt as bad as people think fracking is and how new fracking
technology can improve it to make it cleaner.

Tixe 7
McGlynn, Daniel. "Fracking Controversy." CQ Researcher 16 Dec. 2011: 1049-72. Web. 18 Mar.
2015.
The main arguments in this article are if there are new natural gas drilling methods safe? The
point of the article is to point out everything that has to do with fracking. The topics that are
covered are overview of what fracking is, if fracking is natural gas a clean fuel, is extracting
natural gas from shale safe, fracking regulations, oceans of gas, economics, and whether fracking
is really good for the economy. The article is about providing information of what fracking really
is and how it can be effective to the economy or not.
The source is very useful its from CQ Researcher and is creditable. It compares to the other
sources because it doesnt really take a side but provide the information of fracking and how its
bad and good. The information is reliable because it comes from CPCCs online data base. The
source is objective. The goal of the source it to provide information in every aspect of fracking
and what both sides agree and disagree on.
The source is very and probably one of the biggest source to help with the research. It helps
shape both arguments for on anti-fracking. This source can be used toward the research because
it provides many facts and statistics. It has changed a bit of how I think about the topic since it
gives fair points on both sides making this paper very controversy.
Naff, Clay Farris. "CAN FRACKING LEAD THE WAY TO CLEAN ENERGY?" The Humanist
74.2 (2014): 12-9. ProQuest. Web. 7 Apr. 2015.
This article was about fracking and if it can lead the way to clean energy. The article talks about
a promising Geothermal Technology as cleaner way to get energy. The main argument Naff
points out is that fracking is cleaner than coal but its still very harmful to environment and to our

Tixe 8
health. Naff points out that Geothermal Technology might do the trick to be more
environmentally friendly. The article points out that fracking is cleaner source than burning coal
since natural gas yields about half as much as carbon dioxide as coal. The article also points out
the benefits or fracking in the United States and the consequences. Since the United States
started to get natural gas by fracking, the U.S is no longer dependent on the Middle East for oil
but consequences such as polluting the air, wastewater, and contaminating the water supply over
powers the idea of a positive outlook on fracking. Topics that are covered in this article are
fracking effects, new possible geothermal technology, and citizen views on the topic.
The article is very detailed and has a lot of information that can go towards the research and the
dangers of fracking. The article was useful and for the first time it gave an alternative way to get
energy besides fracking and burning coal. This article can compare to the other articles that are
not in favor with fracking. It compares with the article written by McGlynn since it introduces on
what fracking is and the effects of it. The information is reliable and has been peer reviewed. The
source is very objective and bias because it gives facts and statistics of fracking but since the
article has a section of that citizen think and have done for the matter makes it bias too. The goal
of this source is to figure out if there is a better way to obtain energy.
The article was very informative and helpful. It helps shape the argument on the dangers of
fracking because it talks about the negative effects it has on communities and the environment.
This source can be helpful towards the research project because it summarizes the topics very
good and shows the good and bad in fracking. This source has the changed the way I look at the
topic because it has made me realize how badly fracking can affect a community and made me
think of geothermal technology and how environmentally friendly it is.

Tixe 9
Olson-Sawyer, Kai. "Farming and Fracking Dont Mix: A Farmer Speaks Out." Grace
Communications Foundation. ECO Centric, 11 May 2011. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
This article is mainly about how farming and fracking dont mix. The article talks about a
fracking company drilling near Greg Swartzs Willow Organic Farm and how the fracking
industry is impacting their business in a negative way. Points that are covered throughout the
article are what fracking is and how it impacts the organic farm. The topics that are covered in
the article are how water contamination takes place when planting crops and how its affecting
the farmers business.
The article is a perfect example on how many farmer look at fracking and how it can negatively
impact there business and the environment around them. The source is useful because it is based
on how the farmer feels about fracking and gives his opinion with backup information and
examples on how bad it is for his farm. The source can compare to Hasemyers article because
both articles are based on how the citizens and farmers think about fracking and how it impacted
their lives. The information is reliable because it comes from a Communication Foundation. The
source was bias because it talked about the farmers views on fracking and incorporated his
opinion throughout the article. The goal of this article was to talk about how fracking and
farming can be a dangerous mix since water contamination and air pollution takes place in the
farm. In addition, its a way for the farmer to speak out on how he doesnt feel safe to sell his
fruits and vegetables.
The article was very useful to me since it talked about a farmers point of view on fracking. It
helps shape the argument on how fracking can effects businesses. I can use this source towards
my research project because its one of the voices which are the citizens on how they view

Tixe 10
fracking. It has changed how I view the topic because it talks about how high volume slickwater hydraulic fracturing and food productions are not compatible land uses.
"What Is Fracking? The Answer to Our Energy Problem? - Financesonline.com."
Financesonline.com. N.p., 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
This article talks about if fracking is only answer to the U.S energy problem. The main
arguments are that due to fracking the United States doesnt have to be heavily dependent on
Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and how the U.S supplies around 2.5 trillion cubic
feet of shale rocks. The point of the article is to inform the benefits, dangers and an overall
conclusion if fracking is the answer to the energy problem. The topics that are covered are what
fracking is, the energy resource in America, the dangers of fracking and the impact in U.S
companies.
The article makes valid points on the benefits and dangers of fracking. For the fracking benefits
they base it on how the U.S can make money exporting natural gas to countries like China and
for the dangers they go over environmental risk such as water contamination. The source was
useful because it summarized each section. This article can compare to Howarts article Should
fracking stop? because both articles analyze the benefits fracking brings to the United States.
The information is somewhat reliable since its not peer reviewed. The article is objective since
both sides of the argument have examples and data that shows their claim. The goal of this article
was to see the benefits and dangers of fracking and the overall conclusion which was the
fracking industry needs better technology to improve fracking and make it cleaner.
The article was helpful to me since they talk more about the benefits of fracking. This article can
help shape the paper on how bad it is but also it can show the benefits fracking has in the U.S

Tixe 11
and other countries. I can use this article toward my paper to show that environment risks are
greater than the benefits of fracking. This article has not changed how I view the topic.