Fracking is the process of pumping pressurized water and chemicals deep down into the ground to dismantle shale rock therefore releasing natural gas. This process can be traced back to 1862 when Col. Edward AL Roberts noticed the effects of firing an explosive into a canal that ran across the battle field in Fredericksburg Virginia. He then applied for a patent for a torpedo that would be inserted into oil wells and detonated to release more oil. It was known to increase oil production by 1200 times in some oil wells therefore leading the way for modern fracking. 

Fracking is, however, not used for retracting oil anymore. It is used for gathering natural gas. Modern fracking combined with horizontal drilling is a very controversial topic because it has numerous environmental hazards. The question that is often raised is if the gain from fracking is better than the danger. This type of extraction uses many different types of chemicals equaling close to 40,000 gallons for every round. 

Given the background information on this topic I am interested in it because it raises many environmental risks that could harm the future generations of our country. The chemicals used in the process of fracking leak into our water supply and therefore harm people that drink it. Drinking water in areas of active fracking sites have high levels of methane gas and other toxic chemicals.

The research question does not affect me because I do not live near any active fracking sites. This does however affect my intuition because it makes me wonder how our country can let money hurt our citizens. I do not understand how our country has become the most money hungry country in the world instead of the old America where everyone was entitled to the American dream. 

I do not have any personal experience regarding this topic, but I do have experience with contaminated water supply. Back home we have had problems with our water being clean because the water pipes old and metal and have rusted, therefore releasing large amounts of iron and other harmful chemicals. 

I am qualified to write about this because I am a conservationist. I am also a very big believer that we must take care of our environment because if we do not our future generations will have a poor quality of life. I always do my best to remove trash from the ocean when I am there because it may not seem like much but it can really damage our ecosystems.

The central claim of my first site is the history of fracking and how it was discovered. It gives evidence by describing how Col. Andrew fire artillery into a canal and observed what happened. It also gives details and blueprints of the patent Andrew created to purposely fracture the rock. The major value this source brings to the table is that it actually givesblue prints and very detailed descriptions of how fracking has evolved over the years. The article doesn't really have any interest at stake because it only gives facts about the history and evolution of fracking. The author's credibility is acceptable because he gives minute details that show he has done his research and is very educated on the topic. The bias of the article is low because he is basically stating facts so he cannot display bias in his work. He would not be a credible author if he were to show bias in an article like this.

The central claim of my second site is that fracking is a very costly procedure that damages the environment beyond the reward it brings. The article gives evidence of fracking contaminating the water supply because it gives results of test that show the presence of uranium, radium, methanol and etc. The major values this article brings is that it gives details on how much environmental destruction it actually creates starting from the very beginning by giving the number of trucks it takes to carry all of the water to the site. It raises many good interests, such as all the water contaminations it brings along with it. The credibility of the author is good because you can tell they took time to research their topic and really design their website to make it more meaningful. The source could have a little bias added by the author because it is a controversial topic and the author feels strongly one sided about it. 

The central claim of my third source is the debate between the pros and cons of fracking. It gives many details on how it can hurt the earth geologically and cause earth quakes. It also gives details on how it is a good thing because it says it is using up to ten times less water per unit of energy. The major values of this site are that it gives a good reason and a bad reason for every scenario so you can compare them. The article has a few items at stake because it is controversial within itself which puts it at risk of being biased and criticized. The credibility of this article is pretty good because it is produced by Yale. This is an organization that is known to be very credible for information. This source can be described as a little biased because it is discussing the topic from both sides which can bring bias into the responses.

My research question is arguable because there can be two sides taken. It can be argued that fracking benefits outweigh its harm, but it can also be argued that the hazards are too dangerous to continue. Some disagreements I have found are one source says it takes more water than any other kind of drilling to take place, and another says that it can be up to ten times less water per unit of fuel to carry out. Some arguments are that the water supply around the area of fracking is so contaminated it can't be used. The different views of the sources really don't affect my own because I agree with most of what is being said. I believe that it should not be carried out because it is too harmful to the environment. I might need to revise my research question to make it a little more open to interpretation.

