***I've tried to do most of my evidence and description in the outline itself.
- Intro: Fracking is a relatively new way of removing oil from deep within the earth. The practice is commonly found in oil rich states, such as Oklahoma. In fact, Oklahoma has been experiencing some nasty side effects such as earthquakes.
- What is Fracking?
- Waste water, sand, and other minerals pumped back into ground in order to break up shale rock and expose more potential oil reserves.
- What's so bad about getting some more oil?
- Earthquakes
- Increasing in frequency and magnitude since fracking began.
- Damage to infrastructure. OK homes not built to withstand earthquakes, especially not those above 5.2.
- People's homes are beginning to have damages and repairs can be very expensive.
- So why don't we just stop fracking?
- One of Oklahoma's most valuable resources is oil.
- Most deep well sites are being used up, and many are turning to fracking as an alternative that still presents a good yield.
- Loss of this technique would cause a decline in oil yield, which means that there would be less money, and that large oil profiters in Oklahoma would lose big time on money.
- Remember these people have lots of money and power though, so the government of OK doesn't really want to upset them.
- Counter-argument
- Do we really know these are causing earthquakes?
- YES! (cite form National Geological Survey)
- Do we really want higher gas prices?
- Gas prices are lower around fracking sites (as oil does not have to be imported), but I'm pretty sure the money we are making off of fracking probably isn't going back into our state system anyway. It is being made by specific oil tycoons, like Boone Pickens. However, Pickens does give back some of his money to the state.
- This would hurt Oklahoma's economy!
- Is a slight damage to our economy worth risking the livelihood and safety of the people?
- Don't we also profit a lot from livestock and cattle farming?
- Conclusion
- Fracking will continue to be an issue, especially to the people of Oklahoma. Right now they ride a delicate line between the well being of the economy and the well being of their people. However, if changes are not made, Oklahoma might become the new California in terms of earthquakes,
- Ideas about grabbing the readers' attention might include statistics about the earthquakes, or describing earthquakes and then tying it in to fracking.
Hey Michaela!
ReplyDeleteI looked over your content outline for Project 3 so far and it looks great! It seems like you have a really extensive understanding on fracking and this issue as a public argument. The outline gives a developed "timeline" of your project and how you are going to present all of your content, so hopefully creating the raw content for your project next week (or continuing to create) should be fairly easy. I think that your outline captures the purpose of Project 3 so far because you have identified a public argument where there are valid opinions on both sides and solving the public argument is a matter of safety of the people affected by fracking and security of the U.S. (and some foreign) economy. The rhetorical situation is clearly stated with regards to the context of the situation, who is involved, why it's important, etc. The only specific reference to your sources that I saw was with the National Geological Survey, however I'm guessing you have the sources you want to use already lined up and just finding where to incorporate all of them is a part of your production work.
The information you do have from the National Geological Survey is a very important source, however, and is very credible with the data it provides and in proving your side of the public argument (that fracking explicitly does cause earthquakes and therefore is unsafe to continue). Again, your outline looks great so far and I wish you luck with the rest of your work on Project 3!
Hi Michaela, I like how concise your outline is; it made it really easy to read! I also think it's nice that you had labels for each of your paragraphs beyond '1st body', '2nd body', etc. This is nice not just for me as a reader, but I would think for you, too, as someone who will frequently be returning to this for reference. It does seem like you could take a more firm stance on either focusing on the solution, or your argument for a side. Right now it seems neutral, but then again maybe that's what you're going for, but I would say just make sure that is clearly presented in the beginning that you won't be arguing for one side specifically. Otherwise, I think you're off to a great start!
ReplyDelete