Analysis of Rhetorical Styles from Environmental and Economical Viewpoints within the Fracking Debate

Beginning in 1998, the combination of two natural gas extraction processes sparked a natural gas extraction boom in the US. The process of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, injects a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into a rock to encourage the formation of fractures which in turn enhances the flow of natural gas and oil to the surface (The Process). When combined with the process of horizontal drilling that turns a well horizontal at a particular depth, the fracking industry has been able to tap into many unconventional natural gas deposits with greater ease (Garmezy). Such modern techniques met little restrictive governmental policy upon first appearance, which generated a particularly unregulated industry. In the years since, more substantial fracking policy has been enacted, albeit policy that greatly favors the economy over the environment. This discrepancy has created a thread of controversy within these two disciplines that exposes itself within each discipline’s style of rhetoric. Analysis of these two styles displays the current mindsets of each party towards fracking and the paths they intend to pursue for further involvement or disengagement from the practice.

Both environmentalists and economists dissect the practice of fracking in a factual manner, citing many case studies and statistics. An article entitled “The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking”, written from an environmentalist perspective, employs author credibility, a fragmented structure, visuals, technical writing, and a focus on personal health concerns to convey significant aspects of the fracking practice. In light of their standing, they seek to develop methods that may reduce the detrimental impact of fracking on the environment and benefit society as a whole. “Fracking: Blasting the Bedrock of Business” is an economical article that conveys its author's perspective on fracking through negative, direct language, credible quotes, statistics, case studies, and a look at the cause-and-effect relationship of fracking towards the environment and towards democracy. Through such rhetoric, the authors seek to directly claim that fracking is crippling the environment and the economic sector simultaneously. Whereas environmentalists seek only to offer new solutions to fracking-induced environmental issues, economists are owning up and presenting the facts concerning the dangers associated with fracking to display the environmental harm and the threat to democracy they believe is occurring. Interestingly, and initially appearing through their evolving style of writing, the economic sector that stands to benefit most from fracking is now the first to raise the red flag, from both the business and environmental perspective.

It is a surprise that the scholarly discipline that seems to reap the greatest benefits from the fracking industry is now the first to draw attention to the many possible detrimental aspects of the business. Even though environmentalists and economists seem to maintain stances at opposite ends of the spectrum of fracking, it is noteworthy that the environmentalists do not propose to eradicate fracking altogether–the task would be much too daunting. Rather, they analyze the issue from a new vantage point, and seek to educate the general public about the concerns of fracking, attempting to offer novel solutions that satisfy both parties.

Scientific writings primarily contains the same core elements: an abstract, introduction, body, discussion, and conclusion. Both of these articles follow this skeletal setup; however, the key difference lies in the body portion. The environmentalist viewpoint article is segmented by six subheads. These subheads indicate topic shifts such as “Resource Productivity” to “Water Requirements” to “Well Integrity” etc. This breaks up the length of the article, offering readers a chance to skim to the topic that most interests them. In contrast, the economic viewpoint article does not contain any segmentation, creating a lengthy read full of facts and figures. The environmental article achieves a more organized conveyance of ideas and conclusions, whereas the economic article contributes a similar amount of knowledge, but in a much less reader-friendly format.

A place of personal choice within scientific writing involves the liberty of incorporating visuals. The environmentalist viewpoint article chose to incorporate graphs and tables, but not within the main body of text. The graphs and tables that help substantiate their argument are accessible by a scroll tab on the right-hand side of the page. This decreases the amount of interruptions within the read, but still provides the reader with easy access to the evidence. Contrastly, the economic viewpoint article chose to forgo the inclusion of visual aids. This could be due to the newness of fracking and therefore the lack of credible research to draw from. This choice places all of the emphasis solely upon the text and the ideas presented within.

Important to all academic writing is credibility, especially when contributing to a topic so widely discussed as fracking. At the top of the page before the environmental article begins is a list of the authors and their respective universities and laboratories of employment. This functions as their key source of credibility for the remainder of the article, along with their decision to lay out the current research regarding fracking before offering any unique ideas of their own for further research and recommendations for better regulation. They chose to forgo building credibility from excessive quoting or even from name recognition with in-text citation. Their text contains no quotes and their in-text citations are listed only by number, leaving the sources referenced vague. They instead relied on their own credentials as scholars to build credibility.

In comparison, the article from the economic viewpoint chose to utilize standard in-text citations for their referenced sources. They cite numerous case studies and statistics. The article also included few factual quotes from fellow economists and engineers. For example, to substantiate their claim that further research is necessary, the authors of the economical article quoted economist Barth saying, "Before making any decisions regarding shale gas drilling...we must insist on comprehensive, unbiased, peer-reviewed assessments of economic impacts" (Twomey). Another quote came from T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oilman and natural gas advocate who opposes the selling of US natural gas internationally. He says, "We're truly going to go down as the dumbest generation. It's bad public policy to export natural gas - a cleaner, cheaper domestic resource - and import more expensive, dirtier OPEC oil," (Twomey). The inclusion of credible, scholarly quotes like these builds the article’s ethos.

Environmental as well as economic conversations tend to be technical in language. The following is an excerpt from the article with an environmental viewpoint: “Increasing or decreasing pressure within the casing of simulated wells above 4,000–7,000 psi resulted in the formation of a permeable microannulus at the casing-cement interface” (Jackson et al.). The specific vocabulary and quantitative inclusions directs the content towards those already familiar with the topic. Unique to the economic article is the long discussion on the policy governing fracking. Potentially the most influential rhetorical choice within the economist's viewpoint article is the repeated utilization of negative language. The title, subtitles, and many instances throughout the text are phrased in a negative manner, such as, “Legal and Political Implications of Fracking: Compromising the Principles of Democracy” and “Lawsuits Do Not Provide Adequate Protection for the People” (Twomey). This creates a bias, whether intended or not, within the reader’s mindset. I cannot speak for the author’s direct intent, but this negative perspective comes across as intentional and purposeful. It serves as a vehicle for the author’s to present an unexpected stance against fracking from both the economical and environmental sides of the situation.

Environmentalist purposefully voice their concerns regarding fracking and the ensuing environmental implications. The logical flow text in conjunction with the direct, pointed language creates a solid body of work filled with credibility. The economists share their assessment that fracking is a short-term business success yet a long-term business failure due to faulty governmental policy, leading to a compromise in democracy. Their negative voice fills the article with a strong bias against fracking and against the government. Both disciplines achieve their goal of contributing to the current fracking debate but achieve this through unique means and modes of communication. The largest takeaway is found within the economist's viewpoint article–that the field that benefits most is courageously stepping out first in opposition to such an untested and unregulated practice. This presentation is likely to encourage a more open discussion in regards to fracking and has the potential to lead to legislative changes.



Works Cited

Garmezy, Adam. “Balancing Hydraulic Fracturing"s Environmental and Economic             Impacts: The Need for a Comprehensive Federal Baseline and the Provision of           Local Rights.”
 
Jackson, Robert et al. "The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking."                     Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39 (2014): 327-362. Print.

“The Process of Hydraulic Fracturing.” United States Environmental Protection                Agency. EPA, 16 Oct. 2015. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.

Twomey, Daniel F., et al. "Fracking: Blasting the Bedrock of Business." Competition          Forum 12.1 (2014): 204-16. ProQuest. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.