Just War Theory and Pacifism free essay sample

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace. According to traditional just war theory, a just cause must serve peace and not simply protect an unjust status quo. War must be used as a last resort and all pacifistic approaches must be undertaken. So, if your country is implicated in immoral actions such as oppression of a group of people that terrorist represent, before responding with military action against that group, it is necessary to stop the unjust oppression. We will write a custom essay sample on Just War Theory and Pacifism or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page If by upholding unjust policies, a society makes peace with a country of people impossible, then military action would just be an extension of that countrys unjust policy. This would not be a just war because the reactionary war would be itself an instrument of injustice, and the action would contain an unjust intent. In â€Å"Nipping Evil in the Bud: The Questionable Ethics of Preventative Force†, Douglas P. Lackey holds government responsible for acting militarily when the following conditions are met: it is certain a group of terrorists have the means and intent of attacking, the attack is eminent. He distinguishes between preventative and preemptive basically as whether or not you can prove intention. Lackey makes another assertion.

Free Essays on MetalsUSA

Metals USA Summary: Metals USA is a leading integrated metals processor and distributor in North America serving more than 45,000 customers with a diverse product line in the Plates and Shapes, Flat Rolled steel and Building Products markets. We are focused primarily on providing our customers with a comprehensive range of innovative, value-added products services and solutions at the highest of customer satisfaction levels. We believe that the scope and depth of our vast resources enable us to play the important role of single-source partner for our many customers who seek to streamline and reduce their supply chain costs and enhance efficiency, productivity and profitability. With our sound business strategy based on industry, geographic and product diversity, supported by our ISO 9002 certification and intelligent customer-oriented investments, Metals USA is the one company that can consistently deliver on our promise of "Customer Service Without Compromise." 52 facilities broken up into three product group segments: Plates and Shapes Group, of Metals USA, operates 20 full line Service Centers throughout the United States. The Group inventories, sells, and processes a wide variety of alloy grades and shapes of carbon steel, aluminum and stainless steel. Industries serviced include: Fabrication, Construction, Marine, Machinery and Equipment, Transportation, Aerospace, Electronics, and Energy. The Flat Rolled Group companies of Metals USA, operating from plants throughout America, supply a broad base of O.E.M. and metal forming customers by providing local hands-on service supported by the strength of a national service center. Our customers look to us for a wide variety of metal products in sheet, coil and strip configurations; in standard and configured blanks and in custom-engineered pre-paint metal products. There are 13 facilities that hold this type of work Building Products, L.P., a division of Metals USA, ... Free Essays on MetalsUSA Free Essays on MetalsUSA Metals USA Summary: Metals USA is a leading integrated metals processor and distributor in North America serving more than 45,000 customers with a diverse product line in the Plates and Shapes, Flat Rolled steel and Building Products markets. We are focused primarily on providing our customers with a comprehensive range of innovative, value-added products services and solutions at the highest of customer satisfaction levels. We believe that the scope and depth of our vast resources enable us to play the important role of single-source partner for our many customers who seek to streamline and reduce their supply chain costs and enhance efficiency, productivity and profitability. With our sound business strategy based on industry, geographic and product diversity, supported by our ISO 9002 certification and intelligent customer-oriented investments, Metals USA is the one company that can consistently deliver on our promise of "Customer Service Without Compromise." 52 facilities broken up into three product group segments: Plates and Shapes Group, of Metals USA, operates 20 full line Service Centers throughout the United States. The Group inventories, sells, and processes a wide variety of alloy grades and shapes of carbon steel, aluminum and stainless steel. Industries serviced include: Fabrication, Construction, Marine, Machinery and Equipment, Transportation, Aerospace, Electronics, and Energy. The Flat Rolled Group companies of Metals USA, operating from plants throughout America, supply a broad base of O.E.M. and metal forming customers by providing local hands-on service supported by the strength of a national service center. Our customers look to us for a wide variety of metal products in sheet, coil and strip configurations; in standard and configured blanks and in custom-engineered pre-paint metal products. There are 13 facilities that hold this type of work Building Products, L.P., a division of Metals USA, ...

Free sample - The US Government Should Not be Funding Arts.. translation missing

The US Government Should Not be Funding Arts.. The US Government Should Not be Funding Arts.Introduction First, what does "funding" refer to? Funding can be either direct or indirect. The US government was funding arts in this country before 1965 but that it took in-direct forms, including land grants, tax exemptions to educational and cultural institutions such as museums, and tax advantages for private donations of art to the public. This paper delves more onto direct state funding of the arts. The US arts system has no single control but instead, has a variety of public subsidies composing of roughly 13% of the nation’s total investment in nonprofit arts groups. The National Endowment for the Arts-NEA is the largest single funder of the arts across America, but the majority of direct public funding still flows from a combination of other federal, state, regional and local agencies. NEA in 2009 had a budget of US$155 million.   Even before the creation of the NEA in 1965, the issue of government in funding of the arts had been a contested one. Some justifications for governme nt arts funding are found, but it is noted that in embracing these justifications inappropriate consequences may be occur. Thus, in this paper it is urged that we refrain from government funding of the arts because the effects of such funding, would be deleterious to the art world. Much government funding is aimed at what might be thought of as the preservation of culture. It supports museums and repertory companies and is intent on keeping our culture intact. Other objectives of government funding target community art centers, regional theaters, and school programs. And funding may also be directed to professional artists for the purpose of enabling them to produce new works of art.    Whereas funding of museums looks to the past of our culture, funding professional artists is futuristic.   The preservation of culture, of course, is involved with education, which falls under the jurisdiction of the state . More to that, though not clearly, art preservation keeps us aware of who we have been, which informs our practical decisions about who we shall become. Support for the production of modern day art can also be defended as educational but, bluntly, contemporary art is not our heritage yet; nor is it clear how much of it will be or how far it will stand time.   If the aesthetic value of contemporary art would be used to justify prospective arts funding, it also will have unfortunate consequence in that it only warrants the funding of certain kinds of art, the art of the beautiful, the sublime, and that expressive of psychically balancing qualities. If no further justification can be found, the ill consequence of this is that the state can only fund a certain typ e of art. Artists pursuing certain non aesthetic aims cannot be funded by the state. If the government places large investments behind one type of art, the evolution of the art world will undoubtedly be affect ed. Whole avenues of artistic development will appear less viable than the production of aesthetic art. And from the contemporary art world's point of view, this kind of arts funding might be regarded as having a regressive effect overall.    Another justification used by proponents of arts funding is that it may function as an economic stimulant, promoting prosperity by, for example, attracting tourists. As far as this funding can be pegged to the state of the economy, it would appear to be a legitimate course of action, since functioning of economy is related to the state responsibilities. It is often difficult to imagine the way in which grants to individual artists for new works as opposed to city art centers can spur economic growth. An economic growth argument identifies the value of arts funding not with aesthetic or artistic value, but as an economic instrument. But despite this, the argument seems acceptable, although it can only be mobilized under certain constraints. Where   arts funding is employed to stimulate tourism or some other form of economic activity in a given area, the state must be convinced that there is no alternative form of intervention of comparable cost would yield greater prosperity in that area. More to that, where national rather than local economy is at issue, the state must supply some rationale why it is undertaking to stimulate tourism in one geographical region rather than another.      Another justification put forward is connecting arts funding to   employment. If state funding is not forthcoming, then many artists will be unemployed. Unemployment is a genuine matter of concern to the state. Massive unemployment is one of the great tragedies of our society, and we must demand that the state do something about it. Artists do not constitute a group that is comparable to unemployed youth. Justice and equal opportunity do not seem to bear on the issue of artistic unemployment. For instance, I may not be able to support my family as an unemployed poet; but that does not mean that I can't do it in another way, say, as a cook or a copywriter. It does not fall under the state's responsibilities in regard to the unemployed extend to guaranteeing that everyone have the job he or she most desires. The case of artistic unemployment involves people not able to pursue the line of work they most like, while youth unemployment at large involves people excluded from the work force altogether. Fairness can be used to ground government arts support. If a given government subsidizes the building of sports arenas, then, in all fairness, arts production should also be supported. If the government facilitates the pursuits of sports fans, then it should, as a matter of treating people equally, also facilitate the pursuits of arts fans, perhaps by means of supporting the creation of new art. But what, in such a context, justifies the subsidizing of sports? If nothing does, then perhaps what is required is that neither sports nor the arts be subsidized. Of course, a subsidy for a sport might be defended on the grounds that it stimulates the economy of an area; but then arts funding can, in principle, be similarly defended. Again, it does seem correct to say that if a majority, call them sports fans, demand sports funding in the face of opposition by a minority, call them arts lovers, then fairness urges that the leisure activity of the latter group also be supported, though perhap s not to the same extent. The deeper question, however, is whether any leisure activity should be supported. The advancement of the leisure professions may just not be an area the state should enter at all.    One of the earliest arguments in favor of government support of the arts is that the arts perform a moral function.   If art can function as a means of improving morality, then the state is justified in supporting it. Some art enables us to see the world from a different perspective, thus not only promoting the acquisition of a formal requirement of morality, but also enabling us to understand situations of different classes, races, creeds, and genders. Art, then, can foster greater tolerance within society and thereby bolster the moral order. If we argue from these grounds then state funding on moralizing grounds will be justified ,but   then only to that art which will increase moral sympathies. This will require some serious   research into the moral importance of different kinds of art. Art that afford no moral uplift cannot be funded. This raises problems like those encountered in an earlier discussion of the aesthetics value. If the state is funding only certain kinds of art and it enters the art world, putting its resources behind only moralizing kinds of art, then there is a danger that the development of the art world will be skewed in a certain direction. This violates our understanding   that   art should be pluralist and   independent of considerations of social utility.    Public arts funding primarily benefits the already advantaged. An artist is a person engaged in one or more of any of a broad spectrum of activities   related to creating art, practicing the arts and/or demonstrating an art(Wikipedia). Artist should be able to use their rare skills to improve their well being.    There is also an argument that public funding is necessary to promote innovation and dialogue among diverse points of view, so that groups that want to use the fine arts to challenge the status quo and advocate their unpopular world views and lifestyles can have a forum. However, while the common good requires tolerating the expression of unpopular points of view, the fact that most people do not share them suggests that the common good may not be served by supporting their expression. Even if it is, the government has no more business providing subsidies for such purposes. Indeed, many unpopular world views and lifestyles are at odds with traditional theism, and subsidizing them while not subsidizing theism would give the former an unfair advantage. People who think the expression of an unpopular viewpoint desirable should be fund it themselves just as religious believers should support their churches and missionary activities. The argument that public funding is necessary because some people have great and rare gifts that, due to lack of a market, otherwise will be lost. That might be true but the common good of political society is limited. It is not the proper role of the U.S. government to pursue all human goods in every possible way, and therefore not its business to subsidize every gift that otherwise will be fruitless. Some argue that subsidizing what initially appeals only to a few are necessary to foster a wide variety of creative initiatives that will elevate popular taste and tomorrow serve the multitude. Whether the funded work elevates anyone’s taste is arguable, but even supposing it does, can this indirect contribution to the common good justify the subsidy? Moreover, while some creative efforts that initially appeal to few eventually serve the masses, most do not, and it is hardly possible to show that public funding of some portion of art work is necessary for future cultural development. There are other needs calling for public funding, and some, plainly more pressing than this- for example, better basic education for the very poor- will surely put it to fruitful uses. One cannot justify spending for a dim and uncertain result when there are many urgent and promising alternatives. A recent argument draws a distinction between to view points of culture, Culture provides the particular paintings, performances, and novels, designs, sports and thrillers that we value and take delight in; but it also provides the structural frame that makes aesthetic values of that sort possible and makes them values for us. This structural frame includes a wealth of associations, references, images, and contrasts, which, like language, supply us with the tools with which we forge and map our common life. It insists that it is better for people to have a complex and multifarious cultural framework and that we owe future generations at least as rich a cultural framework as the one we inherited. Both these values can be achieved by promoting the creation of innovative art. Government support in this area is necessary because it "helps protect the fragile structure of our culture. This argument to endorse indirect rather than direct arts support by the government. But he does countena nce situations in which government support could be direct. At least two problems, however, beset this approach. First, there is the assumption that the structure of culture is fragile. When we look at the structure of culture, we note that it comprises many ingredients beside art-social dances, children's games, fashion, sports, religion, indeed the whole gamut of our symbolizing activities. These images become part and parcel of our ways of thinking; they are the very weave of our common culture. But it seems dubious to consider them to be fit beneficiaries of public funding. Yet if art deserves public funding because of its contribution to our cultural framework, so does anything else that similarly contributes, including, potentially, every sort of symbolizing activity, and notably some outlandish ones: hoopla-hoops, comic books, Billy Graham, the Watergate break-in, and so on. Government funding of anything involves government control. Proponents of arts funding are unaware of this peril when they praise the role of the national endowments as an seal of approval on artists and arts groups. This could lead to politicization of arts. Another claim used to justify public funding of arts is equal arts participation.   Participation in arts can not only be attributed to state funding and subsidy but may also be attributed to two other possible factors, that is; Groups that are inclined to participate even without state funding especially those with high income and highly educated may be attending in higher numbers; or, groups that formerly attended in lower rates for example, low income and education and certain ethnic groups may also be participating more given the rise in public support. Accordingly, If state art support truly makes the arts more available and accessible, then   it would be expected that an even more evenly distributed scenario of participation in states that provide more funding would be witnessed. Unequal participation in arts appears on several levels; in education, income, race, and geographic location. People will always participate in the arts at unequal levels, and statistical evidence confirms that participation in arts differs by various populace groups. Although income alone may not accurately predict participation at the individual level, a more complete picture is seen when economic   theory of choice is combined with other social and individual background characteristics that help determine preferences such as education level, racial alignment, income, and location. Therefore, participation inequalities occur not only because of variations of individual tastes, but also because of other social and cultural influences on the choice and ability to participate in arts.   The cultural equity argument for government support, depends on the problem of unequal access. The depends on the fact that factors beyond individuals’ immediate control prevent them from taking part in opportunities availed by participation in arts. Equal access can be categorized into three concepts: equality of opportunity, rights, opportunity, and of participation. Use of state funding to correct for unequal access is a form of redistribution. Redistribution through arts funding is skewed, since it favors those to whom art and the aesthetic are more important over those to whom it is less important. So, the best form of redistribution of state resources would be direct transfers to the less fortunate. Proponents of state funding will also argue that by funding arts the state is safeguarding the welfare of the citizens. But welfare, as it applies to as a state role, refers to assistance to individuals in need of the basic commodities that comprise a living. Is it practical to suppose that arts funding provides some such a commodity?   An analogy would be to say that someone needs Y is to say that they lack it, they will suffer injury, sickness, madness, hunger, or avoidable death. Does the production of contemporary artworks assist individuals in needful situations such as these? The answer is no. Some proponents of public funding will attempt to connect state arts support to the state's welfare function by   introducing a concept of aesthetic welfare. Aesthetic welfare is defined as all the aesthetic levels of the experience of members of the society at a given time. It is then suggested that there is a prima facie government duty to preserve the aesthetic wealth of society wh ere that wealth-pictures, plays, and so forth-is what gives rise to aesthetic welfare. It is not certain, however, that this particular notion of aesthetic welfare helps the case for prospective arts funding since it may be that, if there were such a prima facie duty, retrospective arts funding might suffice to discharge it. Also, one must question whether the connection between "aesthetic welfare" and the concept of welfare relevant to government activity is really unequivocal. First, "aesthetic welfare" doesn't correlate with de-finable needs, especially basic needs; nor does being below the poverty line imply being aesthetically disadvantaged. And clearly promoting individuals' aesthetic welfare will not raise them over the poverty line. More-over, the state's welfare responsibility under this conception of aesthetic welfare doesn't seem to be directly connected to individuals but is a matter of ensuring that there will be a large number of aesthetic objects around so that people can have aesthetic experiences if they want them. The state is to ensure the permanent possibility of high levels of what is called aesthetic welfare but might better be called aesthetic well-being. This well-being is to be secured for society at large, construed additively, whereas the state's welfare responsibilities are discharged toward particular per-sons, viz., anyone in need. Thus the notion of aesthetic welfare" appears not to refer to welfare of the kind that defines the state's proper domain of activity; it is merely a homonymous term that, though sounding like the concept employed in the discussion of the state's welfare responsibilities, is actually quite separate. Lastly, the idea that art will disappear if the government does not support it, and if the state does not fund new art, no one else will. Of course, this is a false claim, and a dubious one at that. The arts flourished in democratic societies before the coming of direct public funding; there is no reason to suppose that they will disappear without the direct government funding of new arts. Where people are interested in art, there will still be an audience to support new work. Were there no audience whatsoever, it would be difficult to determine on what basis the government would justify funding new art. SUMMARY In conclusion, there do appear to be some theoretical justifications for possible government funding of art. The two important   justifications seem to be those concerning the aesthetic environment and the moralizing effects of the arts.   For they endorse the funding of only certain types of art. Government support for only certain types of art may indeed disturb the structure of artistic production and perhaps destroy the art world as we know it.

Juvenile Justice System Process Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Juvenile Justice System Process - Essay Example During the decision making stage, where the arresting officer is still trying to make contact with the parents or making transfer arrangements, federal regulations require that the juvenile being held at adult penitentiaries be kept away from adult inmates (Neubauer & Fradelia, 2009). The law also stipulates that they should be removed from the adult facilities within six hours of arrest. The third stage is the transfer of the case to the juvenile probation department. Here the intake officer will then make a decision whether to dismiss the case, handle it informally or he may propose a formal hearing. Most of the Juvenile cases about 50 percent of them are dismissed (Neubauer & Fradelia, 2009). The probation officer has to review all the facts about the case during this stage and determine whether there is sufficient information to try the youth. If there is adequate evidence the case may be heard informally or formally depending on the available facts otherwise the case is dropped. While awaiting trial the juvenile is required by law to be detained in a secure facility. A judge often decides if the juvenile should be detained before and during the course of the trial. The officer also explains the intent of the detention in a detention hearing that takes place within 24 hours of arrest (Martin, 2005). The fourth stage is either informal, formal hearing or disposition. An informal hearing will be granted by a judge if the juvenile pleads guilty and agrees to settle the charges brought against him through acceptance to meet the courts requirements which may be: restitution, mandatory curfew, school attendance or rehabilitation (NCJRS, 2000). The juvenile is then released but will be monitored by a probation officer. In formal hearings a decision is made where the case will be heard and this may be in a juvenile or criminal court. Most of the cases will be heard in a juvenile court but egregious offenses will be tried in criminal courts (Neubauer & Fradelia, 200 9). Recommendations The juvenile system process varies within states but the above mentioned process is a standard procedure that is supposed to be followed. The problem is that the process is rarely followed. I would recommend that all states adopt the same process so that it becomes uniform. Secondly some states detain juveniles for over six hours in adult penitentiaries. This should stop because the minors go through a rough time in the cells and this affects them psychologically. Third I would also recommend system wide changes in terms of facilities and officers trained to facilitate the whole process. References Martin, G. (2005). Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems. Thousand Oaks, Carlifonia: Sage Publications. NCJRS. (2000). Juvenile Justice System Structure and Process. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from NCJRS: https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nationalreport99/chapter4.pdf Neubauer, D. W., & Fradelia, H. F. (2009). America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System. New York: C engage

Article reflection in urben design Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Article reflection in urben design - Essay Example I like using my smart phone during travel times. I see my travel time as a good way to do those things which I would otherwise be unable to while in the house or in otherwise busy environments such as the classroom or at work. I can say for sure that Smart phones have really changed my travelling experience. Not only can I search for different things as I travel around, but am also able to catch up with news from online sources. Armed with a smart phone, my commuting episodes are always an interesting and productive. The time I use in a public transport medium is never wasted because I use it to do other things such as researching for my course. The things I can do while using a public means of transport range from playing my favourite Smartphone games, to catching up with news from digital versions of the major newspapers. Watching videos online is also an important part of the things which I do during the travel time. On my travels, I also realise that am not the only one who is be nefiting from the portable technologies. Although I personally only use my Smartphone and rarely carries other portable devices such as tablet computers, I realise that most people these days are carrying portable devices on their travels. These digital devices include laptops and tablet computers and these people are never shy to use these devices (Schwieterman 30-35). These people are usually busy on their digital devices, usually with earphones tagged to their ears which mean that they are listening to something. When travelling, I usually like listening to my favourite FM especially during the breakfast shows or the drive-on shows in the evening. I listen to my favourite FM but during the times when there is nothing interesting to listen to, I can listen to my favourite music on the phone. I also like listening to podcasts which I also download online. There is one trend which I have realised with me. For instance, I have noticed that I rarely do the things which I do with my ph one when I am in the house. When am in the house, I rarely ever listen to radio or podcasts. I only find these things interesting when am travelling as a way to keep myself busy. However, listening to music and podcasts are not the only things I do with my phone. I do extensive useful work such as researching for my course. With easy use of internet on my iPhone, I find it easy to be able to use the internet for research. I am very fond of reading articles online on my phone while listening to music on the background. This helps me to pass time and to be able to travel in ease. I also play games as I have installed a number of apps for gaming on my phone. The list of the things I can do on my phone are endless. Most of these activities I only engage when using public transport, not only to pass time, but also to relax myself. I have found public transport very relaxing because I can engage in whatever things I want to do unlike when I am driving. Driving, while at some times enjoyab le, has its own share of troubles. For example a flat tyre always seems to come at the most incontinent of times. The occasional speeding ticket and other minor incontinences also make driving a wreck in most cases. On the other hand, travelling through public transport means that I can sit back and relax and wait for my destination to come to me. Using

Terrorism And Globalization

Terrorism And Globalization Defining terrorism The terrorist phenomenon has a long and varied history, punctuated by lively debates over the meaning of the term. The term itself has always been a difficult one to define. This is partly because the term has evolved over the years and in part because it is associated with an activity that is designed to be subjective. Generally speaking, the targets of the terrorists are not the victims who are killed or injured in the attack. The terrorists hope to engender a reaction such as fear, repulsion, intimidation, overreaction, or radicalization. Terrorism is intended to be a matter of perception and is thus seen differently by different observers. The problem of defining terrorism has hindered analysis since the inception of studies of terrorism in the early 1970s. One set of problems is due to the fact that the concept of terrorism is deeply contested. The use of the term is often polemical and rhetorical. Even if the term is used objectively as an analytical tool, it is still difficult to arrive at a satisfactory definition that distinguishes terrorism from other violent phenomena. Generally speaking, terrorism is deliberate and systematic violence performed by small numbers of people, whereas communal violence is spontaneous, sporadic, and requires mass participation. The purpose of terrorism is to intimidate a watching popular audience by harming only a few, whereas genocide is the elimination of entire communities. Terrorism is meant to hurt. Terrorism is preeminently political and symbolic, where as guerrilla warfare is a military activity. Repressive terror from above is the action of those in power, whereas terrorism i s resistance to authority. Yet in practice, events cannot always be precisely categorized. A few generalizations can be made about terrorism that differentiates it from the states use of force. First, terrorism always has a political nature. It requires the occurrence of outrageous acts that will lead to political change. Second, it is the nonstate character of terrorism that differentiates it from the many other uses of violence that are inherently political such as war among states-even when terrorists receive military, political, economic, and other means of support from state sources. States obviously employ force for political ends: When state force is used internationally, it is considered an act of war; when it is used domestically, it is called various things, including law enforcement, state terror, oppression, or civil war. Although states can terrorize, they are not defined as terrorists. Third, it is generally the innocent that become the target of terrorism. This also distinguishes it from state. In any given example, the latter may or may not be seen as justified but this use of force is different from terrorism. Finally, state use of force is subject to international norms and conventions that may be invoked or at least consulted. Terrorists, on the other hand, do not abide by international laws or norms. In fact, in order to maximize the psychological effect of an attack, the terrorist activities have a deliberately unpredictable quality. Thus, generally speaking, terrorism can be said to have the following characteristics: a fundamentally political nature, the surprise element (use of violence against seemingly random targets), and the targeting of the innocent by nonstate actors. Even within the terms of these general characteristics, the practice of terrorism is highly diverse. The conceptual category of terrorism encompasses a wide variety of phenomena, ranging from kidnappings of individuals (in order to pressure governments to agree to specific political demands) to indiscriminate mass-casualty bombings of high-profile symbolic targets. Terrorism occurs in widely different cultural settings. Origins Terrorism is as old as human history. Modern terrorism, however, is generally considered to have originated with the French Revolution. The term terror was first employed in 1795, when it was coined to refer to a policy systemically used to protect the French republic government against counterrevolutionaries. Modern terrorism is a dynamic concept, from the outset dependent to some degree on the political and historical context within which it has been employed. Although individual terrorist groups have unique characteristics and arise in specific local contexts, an examination of broad historical patterns reveals that the international system within which such groups are born does influence their nature and motivations. A distinguishing feature of modern terrorism has been the connection between political or ideological concepts and increasing levels of terrorist activity internationally. The broad political aim has been against (1) empires, (2) colonial powers, and (3) the U.S.- led international system marked by globalization. Thus it is important to understand the general history of modern terrorism and where the current threat is within an international context. David Rapoport has described modern terrorism as part of a religiously inspired fourth wave. This wave, according to him, follows three earlier historical phases in which terrorism emerged in relation to the breakup of empires, decolonization, and leftist anti-Westernism. Rapoport argues that terrorism occurs in consecutive if somewhat overlapping waves. The argument here, however, is that modern terrorism has been a power struggle along various scales: central power versus local power, big power versus small power, modern power versus traditional power. The key variable is a widespread perception of opportunity, combined with a shift in a particular political or ideological paradigm. Thus, even though the newest international terrorist threat, emanating largely from Muslim countries, has more of religious inspiration, it is more accurate to see it as part of a larger phenomenon of anti-globalization and tension between the have and have-not nations, as well as between the elite and underprivileged within those nations. In the nineteenth century, the emergence of concepts such as universal suffrage and popular empowerment raised the hopes of people throughout the western world, indirectly resulting in the first phase of modern terrorism. In Russia, for example, it was stimulated not by state repression but by the efforts of the czars to placate demands for economic and political reforms, and the inevitable disappointment of popular expectations that were raised as a result. The goal of terrorists was to engage in attacks on symbolic targets to get the attention of the common people and thus provoke a popular response that would ultimately overturn the prevailing political order. This type of modern terrorism was reflected in the activities of groups such as the Russian Narodnaya Volya (Peoples Will) and later in the development of a series of movements in the United States and Europe, especially in territories of the former Ottoman Empire. The dissolution of empires and the search for a new distribution of political power provided an opportunity for terrorism in the nineteenth and twentieth century. It climaxed in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, an event that catalyzed the major powers into taking violent action. World War I, the result of the assassination can be said to have ended the first era of modern terrorism. But terrorism tied to popular movements seeking greater democratic representation and political power from coercive empires had not ceased. For example, the Balkans, after the downfall of the former state of Yugoslavia. A second, related phase of modern terrorism is associated with the concept of national self-determination. It can be said to have developed its greatest predominance after World War I. It also continues to the present day. These struggles for power are another facet of terrorism against larger political powers and are specifically designed to win political independence or autonomy. Terrorism achieved an international character during the 1970s and 1980s, evolving in part as a result of technological advances and partly in reaction to the dramatic explosion of international media influence. International links were not new, but their centrality was. Individual, scattered national causes began to develop into international organizations with links and activities increasingly across borders and among differing causes. The 1970s and 1980s represented the height of state-sponsored terrorism. Sometimes the lowest common denominator among the groups was the concept against which they were reacting-for example, Western imperialism- rather than the specific goals they sought. The most important innovation, however, was the increasing commonality of international connections among the groups. After the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre of eleven Israeli athletes, for example, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and its associated groups captured the imaginations of young radicals around the world. AN EARLIER WAVE OF TERRORISM While globalization is for many a causal variable generating backlash and resistance, there also have been earlier waves of globalization. If terrorism and globalization appear together today, it is possible that terrorism and globalization co-appeared during an earlier period that ran from the 1880s to 1914. Associated with the idea of propaganda by deed, Russian, Italian, Spanish, French, American, Serbian, and Macedonian terrorists were involved in a period of assassination and bomb throwing from the Russian and Ottoman Empires to the east through the Austrian Empire and Western Europe to the United States in the west. In Serbia, there was the Black Hand; in Russia, Narodnaya Volya, or Peoples Will; among Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs, the Young Bosnians and the Narodna Obrana, or the Peoples Defense. Terrorists from one country also killed people from another. While the contemporary period is known as one of international terrorism, there are clear grounds for considering the anarc hist period as one that also had international or global aspects. Some scholars have made comparisons between figures like bin Laden and late 19th-century Russian terrorists. Similarities in the political religion of their ideologies, the diasporic-or transnational-nature of both sets of terrorists who often resided and planned attacks abroad, and the similarity of global political economic conditions at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries have been noted. If al-Qaeda is a reaction to American empire, as few scholars argue, then one could see earlier terrorist resistance in the form of pre-1914 terrorist groups attacking the empires of their day (the Serbian Black Hand versus the Austrian Empire; Inner Macedonian Revolutionary Organization versus the Ottoman Empire; and the terrorists of Narodnaya Volya versus the Tsarist Russian Empire). In the case of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, a comparison with the Sudanese revolt of the Mahdi in the 1880s against the British Empire and bin Laden against the United States has been made. Some note a sim ilarity between the hatred of London as the financial center of world capitalism at the end of the 19th century and the hatred by fanatical Muslims today of the dominance of Wall Street and the Pentagon. Since the September 11 attacks, the world has witnessed the maturation of a new phase of terrorist activity, the jihad era, spawned by the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as well as the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan shortly thereafter. The powerful attraction of religious and spiritual movements has overshadowed the nationalist or leftist revolutionary ethos of earlier terrorist phases (though many of those struggles continue), and it has become the central characteristic of a growing international trend. Religious terrorism is not new; rather it is a continuation of an ongoing modern power struggle between those with power and those without it. What is different about this phase is the urgent requirement for solutions that deal both with the religious fanatics who are the terrorists and the far more politically motivated states, entities, and people who would support them because they feel powerless and left behind in a globalizing world. Thus if there is a trend in terrorism, it is the existence of a two-level challenge: the hyper religious motivation of small groups of terrorists and the much broader enabling environment of bad governance, nonexistent social services, and poverty that punctuates much of the developing world. Al-Qaeda, a band driven by religious extremism, is able to do so much harm because of the secondary support and sanctuary it receives in vast areas that have not experienced the political and economic benefits of globalization. There are four types of terrorist organizations that can said to be currently operating around the world, categorized mainly by their source of motivation: left-wing terrorists, right-wing terrorists, ethno nationalist/separatist terrorists, and religious or sacred terrorists. All four types have enjoyed periods of relative prominence in the modern era, with left-wing terrorism intertwined with the Communist movement, right-wing terrorism drawing its inspiration from Fascism, and the bulk of ethno nationalist/separatist terrorism accompanying the wave of decolonization especially in the immediate post-World War II years. Currently, sacred terrorism is becoming more significant. Although groups in all categories continue to exist today, left-wing and right-wing terrorist groups were more numerous in earlier decades. Of course, these categories are not perfect, as many groups have a mix of motivating ideologies-some ethno nationalist groups, for example, have religious characteristics or agendas-but usually one ideology or motivation dominates. NEW TERRORISM Following incidents such as the bombing of the WTC in 1993, U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, and the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC in 2001, the conventional belief of researchers and commentators on terrorism was that the world had entered a new phase since the 1990s that departed dramatically from what had gone before. It variously was called the new terrorism or spoken of as involving new types of post-cold war terrorists or a new breed of terrorist or new generation of terrorists; or terror in the mind of God or a clash of fundamentalisms or simply a new wave of terrorism. In these analyses terrorism seemed to be changing in some of the following ways. Several recent works focus on a new terrorism that is motivated by religious belief and is more fanatical, deadly, and pervasive than the older and more instrumental forms of terrorism the world had grown accustomed to. This emerging new terrorism is thought to differ from the old terrorism in terms of goals, methods, and organization. The comparison goes roughly as follows. Whereas the old terrorists sought short-term political power through revolution, national liberation, or secession, the new terrorists seek to transform the world. Motivated by religious imperatives, they are thought to lack an earthly constituency and thus to feel accountable only to a deity or to some transcendental or mystical idea. Conventional left-right ideological distinctions are not applicable. Because they do not want popular support, they are unlikely to claim public credit for their actions. Also, new terrorists are thought to be more inclined to use highly lethal methods in order to destroy an impure world and bring about the apocalypse. The strategies of the old terrorists were discriminating; terrorism was a form of communicating a specific message to an audience. In the new terrorism, unlimited ends lead to unlimited means. Thus the new terrorists seek to cause high numbers of casualties and are willing to commit suicide or use weapons of mass destruction in order to do so. Finally, whereas traditional militants were linked in tight, centralized, structured conspiracies, the organization of the new terrorists is decentralized and diffuse. Adherents are united by common experience or inspiration rather than by direct personal interaction with other members of the group and its leaders. Institutions and organizations are less important than beliefs. An earlier and more violent historical antecedent of the conception of a new terrorism is anti-Western terrorism originating in the Middle East that is linked to radical or fundamentalist Islam. This concern dates from the 1980s and terrorism attributed to the Shiite Hezbollah action in Lebanon. Alarm over the emergence of radical Islam (which is a small minority of the Muslim world) was heightened by a combination of factors: the resort to suicide bombings in Lebanon and Israel, a general willingness to inflict mass civilian casualties, and anti-Americana and anti-Western targeting patterns. The bombing of th e World Trade Center in 1993 as well as the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 further increased the American sense of vulnerability. Trends in Modern Terrorism By the late 1990s, four trends in modern terrorism were becoming apparent: an increase in the incidence of religiously motivated attacks, a decrease in the overall number of attacks, an increase in the lethality per attack, and the growing targeting of Americans. Statistics show that, even before the September 11 attacks, religiously motivated terrorist organizations were becoming more common. The acceleration of this trend has been dramatic: According to the RAND-St. Andrews University Chronology of International Terrorism, in 1968 none of the identified international terrorist organizations could be classified as religious; in 1980, in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution, there were 2 (out of 64), and that number had expanded to 25 (out of 58) by 1995. Another important trend relates to terrorist attacks involving U.S. targets. The number of such attacks increased in the 1990s, from a low of 66 in 1994 to a high of 200 in the year 2000. This is a long-established problem: U.S. nationals consistently have been the most targeted since 1968. But the percentage of international attacks against U.S. targets or U.S. citizens rose dramatically over the 1990s, from about 20 percent in 1993-95 to almost 50 percent in 2000. In addition to the evolving motivation and character of terrorist attacks, there has been a notable dispersal in the geography of terrorist acts-a trend that is likely to continue. Although the Middle East continues to be the locus of most terrorist activity, Central and South Asia, the Balkans, and the Transcaucasus have been growing in significance over the past decade. International connections themselves are not new: International terrorist organizations inspired by common revolutionary principles date to the early nineteenth century and complex mazes of funding, arms, and other state support for international terrorist organizations were in place especially in the 1970s and 1980s. Terrorism Becoming Global Newer terrorist organizations seemed to have moved away from the earlier model of professionally trained terrorists operating within a hierarchical organization with a central command chain and toward a more loosely coupled form of organization with a less clear organizational structure. Similarly, whereas from the 1960s through the 1980s groups more clearly were bound nationally (German, Japanese, Italian, Spanish, Irish, Palestinian, and so forth), more recent organizations like al-Qaeda have members from multiple nationalities and organizational sites outside the leaderships country of origin. The identities of terrorist organizations have become more difficult to identify. Terrorist organizations also seem to identify themselves or to claim responsibility for specific acts less often, such as the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa or the events of September 11, which while purportedly organized by bin Laden and al-Qaeda, never clearly were claimed by that organization. This is in contrast with earlier terrorist organizations, which were much clearer in taking responsibility for their actions and defining who they were, often with elaborate radical political ideologies. Terrorist ideologies have become more religious. What has been called the new religious terrorism or holy terrorism reflects the increasing prevalence of religion in the ideology of terrorist organizations, with the most notable being Islamic fundamentalism, or political Islam, and also including Christian fundamentalism or the religious sect Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese terrorist group that released poisonous gas in a Tokyo subway in 1995. There also seems to be an increase in groups with more vague and religious ideologies than earlier radical groups such as the German Red Army Faction, the Italian Red Brigades, or the Japanese Red Army. Terrorist violence becomes more indiscriminate. Along with a geographical dispersion of targets, there seems to be a move away from specific targets, for instance as when hundreds of civilian Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy employees and passersby were killed to achieve the objective of bombing the U.S. embassy. The 1993 and 2001 attacks of the WTC were also examples of more indiscriminate targets, as opposed to earlier skyjacking of a national airlines plane in order to attain specific demands or the kidnapping a particular politician. On reflecting upon these changes, many of them suggest the process of globalization raising the question of whether terrorism, like other economic, cultural, and political aspects of life also is globalizing. Arguments about a growing dispersion and indiscriminateness of terrorist violence also express a disregard for national boundaries and, as such, a growing global, as opposed to national, character of terrorism. GLOBALIZATION AND TERRORISM Some scholars interpret the link between globalization and terrorism in a causal fashion: globalization generates a backlash or resistance that can take the form of terrorist attacks on national powers in the forefront of the globalization processes. In this regard, some see terrorism as a defensive, reactionary, movement against global forces of cultural and economic change. Industrialization then and globalization now involve integration into a larger web of economic transactions that threatens local authority and sense of place. The result is defensive, reactionary mobilization, manifested in European food riots then and Middle Eastern terrorism now. In their article, International Terrorism and the World System, Albert J. Bergesen and Omar Lizardo have formulated a number of theories and bring forth the links between globalization and terrorism. World-System Theory While world-system theorists normally are concerned with questions of development and underdevelopment, they have advanced similar ideas regarding globalization and terrorism. Chase-Dunn and. Boswell in Transnational Social Movements and Democratic Socialist Parties in the Semiperiphery speak of the reactionary force of international terrorism as an anti-systemic element or globalization backlash; M,Jurgensmeyer in Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence links the disruption of globalization with defensive reactions that often take a religious character, and when that reaction is terrorism, it can take the form of fundamentalist Arab-Islamic terrorist organizations. World-Society/Polity Theory While world-society theorists have not addressed the issue of international terrorism directly, they have documented the continued expansion of Western originated cultural models of rationalized action and universal standards during the same period that a rise in international terrorism has been observed. To the extent that there is a possible causal relationship, world-society theorys top-down model of the intrusion of the world-politys global standards, expectations, norms, and definitions of reality also might generate defensive backlash that might, under some circumstances, take the form of international terrorism. It would seem that the growth in world society provides a generalized empowerment for international action on the basis that social existence is global existence and that social problems are global problems. The expansion of global society should empower action across the globe as a distinctly glob logical effect, which means that individuals in Latin America suffering from the side effects of economic globalization should feel just as globally empowered to engage in international backlash terrorism as those of the Arab-Islamic Middle East. But this does not seem to be the case; there is not as much international terrorism emanating from Latin America as from the Middle East, yet both are or should be globally empowered (world-society effect) and angry (globalization creates resistance effect). But the anger seems to be turned inward in Latin America and outward in the Middle East. What accounts for differences of response? Relative openness, democracy, representational institutions, and levels of functioning intermediary social organization may absorb, channel, or somehow provide outlets for the tensions and anger set off by globalization. Their anger is channeled into electoral politics, demonstrations, social move-mints, and domestic terrorism; in the more autocratic Arab-Islamic regimes, dissent is suppressed more often, and there are fewer o pportunities for its expression within the institutionalized political opportunity structures of those states. As a result, given the same level of global empowerment, the anger is turned outward to take the form of international terrorism more often than in Latin America. There is also no doubt something of a curvilinear effect with linkages to world-society. They empower and, given grievances, would have a positive effect upon contentious acts like international terrorism. But continued linkage into world-society also would seem to have an integrative effect and thereby would dampen terrorism rates, yielding an overall curvilinear relationship between linkages to world-society and rates of international terrorism Blowback Theory M.Crenshaw in Why America? The Globalization of Civil War argues that terrorism should be seen as a strategic reaction to American power, an idea associated with Johnsons blowback thesis. In this view, the presence of empires-both at the end of the last century and today-and the analogous unipolar military position of the United States today provoke resistance in the form of terrorism. Johnson notes that the Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires-which controlled multiple ethnic, religious, and national peoples-led to a backlash, or blowback, by Serb, Macedonian, and Bosnian terrorist organizations . By analogy the powerful global position of the United States, particularly in its role of propping up repressive undemocratic regimes, constitutes something of a similar condition with Arab-Islamic terrorism as a result. The Center for Strategic International Studies (2002) attempts to precisely define globalization, calling it a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. Some aspects of globalization facilitate terrorism. At its basest meaning, globalization means internationalization. Something is taken from a national setting and projected across the world. Certain nations adopt this, others reject it. When most nations do accept it and adopt it, globalization is taking place. A K Cronin in Behind the Curve suggests that terrorism cemented itself as an international phenomenon in the 1970s and 1980s, evolving in partà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ in reaction to the dramatic explosion of international media influence. At this point in time, news media was truly becoming international in scope. Many broadcasting companies maintained correspondents or sister stations in other nations, sharing information back and forth. This would lead to the first visions of terrorism for many peoples who had never seen it. Presently, the media can be responsible for perpetuating the climate of international terror. Another aspect to this concept is that the media can be used by terrorists for their purposes. Osama bin Laden released his now-infamous recorded statements using instruments of globalization. Many have seen video of bin Laden on American media outlets even though it was originally released to regional network Al-Jazeera. International media certainly is not the main byproduct that facilitates terror. Perhaps the main facilitator stemming from globalization is communications technologies. There are many devices taken for granted in Western society that changed the way terrorists operate, especially digital communications device. Clansmen fighting Americans in Somalia in the early 1990s used digital phones that could not be tapped. The internet, mobile phones, and instant messaging have given many terrorist groups a truly global reach. Leading up to the September 11 attacks, al-Qaeda operatives used Yahoo e-mail, while the presumed leader made reservations online and other members researched topics such as using crop dusters to release chemical agents Perhaps even more troubling is that these technologies can be used to disperse terrorists to different locations yet stay connected. Cells can stay in touch through internet communications while websites spread ideologies. It is estimated that al-Qaeda op erates in over sixty countries now as a result of using technologies inspired by globalization Globalization makes CBNR weapons increasingly available to terrorist groups. Information needed to build these weapons has become ubiquitous, especially through the internet. Among the groups interested in acquiring CBNR (besides al-Qaeda) are the PLO, the Red Army Faction, Hezbollah, the Kurdistan Workers Party, German neo-Nazis, and the Chechens. Globalization has enabled terrorist organizations to reach across international borders, in the same way (and often through the same channels) that commerce and business interests are linked. The dropping of barriers through the North American Free Trade Area and the European Union, for instance, has facilitated the smooth flow of many things among countries. This has allowed terrorist organizations as diverse as Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Egyptian al-Gamaat al-Islamiyya to move about freely and establish cells around the world. Movements across borders can obviously en-able terrorists to carry out attacks and potentially evade capture, but it also complicates prosecution if they are apprehended, with a complex maze of extradition laws varying greatly from state to state. The increased permeability of the international system has also enhanced the ability of nonstate terrorist organizations to collect intelligence. States are not the only actors interested in collecting, disseminat ing, and/or acting on such information. In a sense, then, terrorism is in many ways becoming like any other international enterprise. Terrorist organizations are broadening their reach in gathering financial resources to fund their operations.. The list of groups with global financing networks is long and includes most of the groups identified by the U.S. government as foreign terrorist organizations. Sources of financing include legal enterprises such as nonprofit organizations and legitimate companies that divert profits to illegal activities and illegal enterprises such as drug smuggling and production. Websites are also important vehicles for raising funds. Although no comprehensive data are publicly available on how lucrative this avenue is, the proliferation of terrorist websites with links or addresses for

Fracking: Water and Hydraulic Fracturing

Running head: FRACKING AND THE ENVIRONMENT The Effects of Hydraulic Fracturing and the Potential for Solutions Mark Hatcher ITT Technical Institute Full of beauty and bounty, for all who seek it, the dream of that new discovery or the find of a lifetime, awaits us whose desire is to have the plan that will fulfill a destiny, if we only work together and are determined to rise above the challenges to meet the aspiration.Those who believe and are willing to reach beyond normal capacity are most of the time able to accomplish the needs of the many, which in turn help further the cause for our existence and the anticipation of things to come. In doing so, many resources have been revealed fitting and useful over the course of time to assist us in our daily needs and social settings, allowing us the ability to sustain ourselves throughout history. However, as those resources grow smaller and our economy demands grow greater, we recognize the need to expand the search for other means of re conciliation to survive.In today’s economic struggle and political upheavals, we are ever so more seeking out new ways to take care of our own and retrieve new ways of self-dependence upon resources known to exist; only the means to extract are at hand. As most of us know, one of our most precious and well utilized resources to date is oil, black gold, which found far beneath the earth’s layers, in turn sent the Beverly Hillbillies to stardom. The need for oil and the byproducts that come from it are in great need and the costs are rising daily.Our requirement to ascertain this product has caused some concern and revealed the necessity to seek out new ways of locating this liquid assurance, for meeting our future demands. Although, there may be many ways of retrieving this from beneath the many depths of the earth, there has only been one way, truly effective for reaching areas untouched by normal means, which has become the center cause of debate in recent years. I wi ll, through the use of various reports and studies bring forth analysis and discovery that highlights the use of hydraulic fracturing and the effects hat seem to shadow over this seemingly burdened tactic of extraction. Before immersing ourselves in the myriad of reports, studies, and personal accounts concerning the results of this approach, we should understand what hydraulic fracturing is and the process it takes. Understanding the process, through which this approach is considered, we will be able to seize what the issues are and the potential for ushering in an agreement to a solution. We must first recognize what shale is and what it offers. Is this the answer to our economic future and interdependence on oil?Shale is a very compacted rock with fine sediment that is found to be with a large amount of minerals and other resources. â€Å"Shales are fine-grained sedimentary rocks that can be rich resources of petroleum and natural gas. Sedimentary rocks are rocks formed by the a ccumulation of sediments at the Earth's surface and within bodies of water. Common sedimentary rocks include sandstone, limestone, and shale† (ShaleTech Shale Training and Education Center, 1995). We know that there are many resources we can extract from this area and the plays will require a unique technique to draw the required material out.Plays are noted to be spread out, throughout the United States and furthermore, the other side of the great pond is known to have several locations found to be worthy of the dig. â€Å"Shale gas maps show â€Å"plays† are found throughout the Mountain West, the South and throughout the Northeast's Appalachian Basin. The Barnett shale play in Texas, for example, is 5,000 square miles and provides 6 percent of U. S. natural gas. The Marcellus shale play that stretches across Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia covers ten times the square miles of the Barnett, but has only recently started to be developed† (EnergyFro mShale, 2012).There is much to do, in order to gain access to much of the plays that have yet to be discovered. As we progress in the direction of needed acceptance, we must consider the reasoning behind the need for access and what implications it may bring. â€Å"The U. S. Energy and Information Administration (EIA) reports that over 750 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas and 24 billion barrels of technically recoverable shale oil resources in discovered shale plays exist† (EnergyFromShale, 2012). This knowledge should propel us to continue to esearch necessary ways of extracting such a rich resource. However, within the last 50 years, there has been a means of retrieving this valuable resource for our future existence and economic progress. This activity has been possible through the actions of many drilling companies by the use of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a unique way to obtain the oil reserves by drilling in a horizontal pattern and gaining access to those many billion barrels of oil and natural gas waiting to be released.First, we must completely understand what hydraulic fracturing is and what it represents to the public. â€Å"Hydraulic fracturing is the process of drilling for natural gas and oil underneath the ground. Water mixed with other  components is pumped into the ground to create cracks (also referred to as fissures or fractures) to release the gas into wells that have been built for collection† (WhatIsFracking, 2013). As the fog of understanding is slowly starting to lift, we again have to understand that there is a process, in which this occurs and will be noted in later pages, as to the affects of this procedure.Note that this has not gone on for such a period, as to not be studied and time given to organizing the pros and cons of this operation. In order to gain access to the far reaches of the plays that holds the resource, the utilization of various fluids and sand is used in th e process. It is vital to comprehend the need for monitoring the steps, as they occur and the overall engagement of the wells development. Steps are established, for this must have a great deal of regulatory involvement, while the entire flood of activity occurs. Water, sand and additives are mixed at the surface and pumped at high pressures down the wellbore. The fracturing fluid flows through the perforated sections of the wellbore and into the surrounding formation, fracturing it while carrying sand or proppants into the cracks to hold them open. Experts continually monitor pressures and fluid properties during the process, and adjust operations as necessary. This process is typically completed in multiple sections of the wellbore, commonly referred to as stages.Typically stages are isolated using a plug to allow energy or pressure to be applied to a smaller portion of the formation to help maximize the fractures created in the target formation. The plugs are removed from the wel lbore and the well’s pressure is reduced during the flowback process, leaving the sand in place to prop open the cracks and allow natural gas and oil to flow. Naturally occurring produced water, collected during the flowback process and throughout the life of the well, is properly disposed of or treated and re-used in the next hydraulic fracturing operation† (Chesapeake Energy, 2013).As the process dictates, it is very in-depth and must have an enormous amount of oversight, in order to accommodate the issues that may arise during any given point. Now that we have a clearer picture of the process, we should learn of the historical track that played out, in the early days. The first recorded effort to gain access to the plays that hold the natural gas and oil deposits was in the year 1947 by Pan American Petroleum Corp. This was noted as being a test platform, in which there was to be hydraulic fracturing compared directly with acidizing.This well, located in Grant County , Kansas, home of the Hugoton field Kelpper Well No. 1, was used as a tool for simulation productivity of oil and natural gas wells (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2012). As time progressed, it became more and more popular, as a greater amount of drilling companies began to see the possibilities and growth potential in this process. Now we find ourselves faced with several years of activity and lessons learned to cope with, from various issues that have found their way to the open public.After many years of hydraulic fracturing and the horizontal drilling effort, there have been noted disruptions by what has been occurring through the need to extract methane from the shale rock. Therefore, further analysis is necessary to investigate the potential cause of all the reports being tethered through local, state, and the federal governments. The impact of this drilling weighs heavily on the residents that are local to the drilling process.The concerns stem from the possibility of contam ination that may be chiefly caused by the various fluids that are transferred through the well system, in order for the fracturing process to transpire. There is great concern that life threatening incidents may be a great risk to the area being fracked. With this issue and many others on the horizon, the Environmental Protection Agency has been very inclusive in all the debate. Through many regulatory policies and formal laws, there have been continued discussions, in regards to hydraulic fracturing.Before we discuss the major policies that have been implemented, it is necessary to bring about the detailed issues that have raised such awareness. An astronomical amount of reports had perforated the airways and given some reason for there to be fear in most of the residents’ eyes, when it could affect their very living conditions and livelihoods. â€Å"Areas of concern include perceived lack of transparency, potential chemical contamination, water availability, waste water di sposal, and impacts on ecosystems, human health and surrounding areas† (University of Michigan, 2012).The potential for there to be a complete downfall of an industry that had found an answer to locating and retrieving the well needed resource was now at the forefront of controversy and having to prove its place in this progressive economy. The report would continue to show the prospects of being an enormous loss to the residents of Michigan. â€Å"Hydraulic fracturing has the potential to touch issues that virtually all Michigan residents care about: drinking water, air quality, Great Lakes health, water supply, local land use, energy security, economic growth, tourism and natural resource protection,† Hoffman said. In the end, our goal is to provide valuable insights and information to help address these important and legitimate concerns here in the Great Lakes State† (University of Michigan, 2012). The reports would not stop here, they would continue around the nation. â€Å"A U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) report found traces of methane, ethane and phenol in a monitoring well in rural Pavillion, Wyo. , where residents say fracking has contaminated their drinking water† (Colman, 2012). As noted, this was going to be a continual issue, needing mitigation and regulation by an appropriate authority.Along with this report came other stories, following the same circumstances and leading to the same conclusions. At this point there needed to be an in-depth study to completely comprehend the issues that have drawn so much limelight and bring about a report that would lead to the needed answers and come to some final conclusions. This is where the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Interior (DOI) came together in an multi-agency agreement to work toward efforts to engage this potential problem. In March 2011, the White House released a â€Å"Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future† (Blueprint) –a comprehensive plan to reduce America's oil dependence, save consumers money, and make our country the leader in clean energy industries. The Blueprint supports the responsible development of the Nation's oil and natural gas, with the specific goals of promoting safe practices and reducing energy imports. The Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of the Interior (DOL), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) each will have a critical role to play in this mission† (Majumdar, A. Hayes, D. J. , Perciasepe, B. , 2012). Marching orders were therefore given to the multi-agency force and each would take measures, as to not go into redundancy and use each other’s fields of expertise and resolve conflicts, as they arose. As the EPA will continue to work in a multi-agency capacity to continue learning answers from their in-depth study, it is important to know that they did do an earlier study in 2004 on underground sourc es of drinking water, as it referred to hydraulic fracturing.While the main portion of the fracturing is conducted in a particular place, many of the other sections of vertical and horizontal well sections may be set up over several thousands of feet away. â€Å"Fluids, commonly made up of water and chemical additives, are pumped into a geologic formation at high pressure during hydraulic fracturing. When the pressure exceeds the rock strength, the fluids open or enlarge fractures that can extend several hundred feet away from the well.After the fractures are created, a propping agent is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing when the pumping pressure is released. After fracturing is completed, the internal pressure of the geologic formation cause the injected fracturing fluids to rise to the surface where it may be stored in tanks or pits prior to disposal or recycling. Recovered fracturing fluids are referred to as flowback. Disposal options for flowback include disc harge into surface water or underground injection.Surface water discharges of the flowback  are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which requires flowback  to  be  treated prior to discharge into surface water or underground injection prior to discharge. Treatment is typically performed by wastewater treatment facilities. Underground injection of flowback is regulated by either EPA Underground Injection Control (UIC) program or a state with primary UIC enforcement authority. Injection of natural gas production wastes would be considered a Class II injection well† (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).As seen, there are restrictions in place to prevent any issues with contaminants from ground water penetration. Even with these restrictions in place, there are clear indicators that there is a more graphic understanding what is coming out, as a result of fluids being pressurized through the system. â€Å"Along with the int roduced chemicals, hydrofrac water is in close contact with the rock during the course of the stimulation treatment, and when recovered may contain a variety of formation materials, including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides, and organics that can make wastewater treatment difficult and expensive.The formation brines often contain relatively high concentrations of sodium, chloride, bromide, and other inorganic constituents, such as arsenic, barium, other heavy metals, and radionuclides that significantly exceed drinking water standards† (danps, 2011). There needs to be a very serious conversation of how this is cleaned up and an answer, as to whether it is enough. There is clearly a lot of work put into the actual cleaning of the ground water, prior to the actual point, in which we, as citizens are able to partake of the needed substance for consumption. No matter how clean it is when you actually consume it, the process of getting to it is unbelievably dirty. Even the USGS acknowledges as much: â€Å"While the technology of drilling directional boreholes and the use of sophisticated hydraulic fracturing processes to extract gas resources from tight rock have improved over the past few decades, the knowledge of how this extraction might affect water resources has not kept pace† (danps, 2011). This is only one aspect of where this all goes.So many other areas of research are in need, to better understand the process, in which the fracturing is utilized. Further research was conducted and it was through the use of several interviews and questioning of a myriad of employees from various locations, concerning the extraction of Coal Bed Methane† (CBM). EPA researched more than 200 peer-reviewed publications, interviewed approximately 50 employees from industry and state or local government agencies, and communicated with approximately 40 citizens and groups who are concerned that CBM production ffected their drinking water wells† (United States Environmental Agency, 2004). After the many reviews and interviews conducted, the EPA came to some conclusions and presented them in chapter 7 of this current report. â€Å"Hydraulic fracturing may have increased or have the potential to increase the communication between coal seams and adjacent formations in some instances. For example, in the Raton Basin, some fracturing treatments resulted in higher than expected withdrawal rates for production water.Those increases, according to literature published by the Colorado Geologic Survey, may be due to well stimulations creating a connection between targeted coal seams and an adjacent sandstone aquifer (Hemborg, 1998). In the Powder River Basin, concerns over the creation of such a hydraulic connection are cited as one reason why hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane reservoirs is not widely practiced in the region. Some studies that allow direct observation of fractures (i. . , mined-through studies) also provided evidence that fractures move through interbedded layers, sometimes taking a stair-step path way through complex fracture systems, and sometimes enter or propagate through geologic strata above the coal† (United States Environmental Agency, 2004). The EPA finished out their report with concluding comments that were found to be not as alerting than what might have been expected. Based on the information collected and reviewed, EPA has concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed methane wells poses little or no threat to USDWs and does not justify additional study at this time. Although potentially hazardous chemicals may be introduced into USDWs when fracturing fluids are injected into coal seams that lie within USDWs, the risk posed to USDWs by introduction of these chemicals is reduced significantly by groundwater production and injected fluid recovery, combined with the mitigating effects of dilution and dispersion, adsorption, and potentially biodegradati on.Additionally, EPA has reached an agreement with the major service companies to voluntarily eliminate diesel fuel from hydraulic fracturing fluids that are injected directly into USDWs for coalbed methane production† (United States Environmental Agency, 2004). Several other reports came into sight, throughout the country concerning the use of hydraulic fracking and the potential for impacting, not only the land, but the economy for a given area, as well. Reports stemming from a community that namely has an array of vineyards for the production of wine, have thrown a red flag of concern over the entire region.This rise of apprehension over their displeasure of drilling companies simply ushering themselves in and going to work on their well, without concern for the nearby residents and their land. The mounting anxiety over this issue has occurred from the noticeable problematic reports of events that literally sprang up in the area. â€Å"This past June, a methane geyser was found in Pennsylvania’s Tioga County. Yes, a geyser — shooting methane-infused water 30 feet up in the air.Once the geyser was discovered, the county immediately turned to Shell, which was drilling in three nearby locations. Shell and the Department of Environmental Protection began investigating, and it was correctly suspected that an abandoned well from the 1930s contributed to the problem† (Figueroa, 2012). This, being an erroneous event was later found to be an old existing well from the 1030s, where the fluid from a nearby well, being hydraulically fractured, leaked over near the old well and burst up through it, creating the 30 foot geyser.There too, have been issues regarding the location of the wells near vineyards and the potential for disruption in the soil content and an economical impact, for the soil is worked to contain the right content for growing the vines for the fine wine. As well, if the land soil is tainted, there is a possibility of an econo mic suffering from the loss of profit if tastes change and are possibly contaminated. â€Å"Vineyard owners in California are  growing increasingly wary  of fracking as gas companies begin preliminary operations. Venoco has started exploring Monterey Shale for both oil and gas drilling.Last year, the company filed an application for drilling permits in Monterey County, according to Simon Salinas, a member of the county’s Board of Supervisors, and it already holds hundreds of thousands of acres in the formation has drilled more than 20 wells and has invested $100 million in oil exploration. With vineyards and farmlands covering 200,000 acres of Monterey that help make up an $8 billion agricultural business, Salinas told the  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, â€Å"Anything that can taint our water and food supply could be devastating to our economy† (Figueroa, 2012).Reports even go deeper than this, where there are believed to be detrimental damage and even death to anima ls that are near any wells in the area. It may be a reality as more and more livestock are raised near fracking sites. Hundreds of animals have already been  affected  after coming into contact with fracking fluid. â€Å"Last year, 28 beef cattle in Pennsylvania were exposed to the fluid. Only three of the 11 calves these cattle gave birth to survived. In Louisiana a few years ago, 16 cows dropped  dead  after drinking fracking fluid† (Figueroa, 2012).These are all alarming reports and individuals that are in the area have every reason to be upset and concerned over the events taking place. The question is, does this warrant further investigation or simply better legislation to control the problem or the potential, there of? As all of this sounds incredibly scary and one may ask the whereabouts of such legislation, it is understood that all the problems that have come about, are those that have mostly to do with water and how it affects surrounding land and the owners .This, being the case is under the written regulations of the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. The UIC program has developed certain guidelines for all involved with the use of a fluid injection process to extract the shale oil and natural gas that is so plentiful, throughout our region. The guideline begins the use of diesel fuel for the injection process, in the following statement: â€Å"EPA has developed draft Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class II permitting guidance for oil and gas hydraulic fracturing activities using diesel fuels.This document describes information useful in permitting the underground injection of oil- and gas-related hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuels where EPA is the permitting authority. EPA's goal is to improve compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements and strengthen environmental protections consistent with existing law† (United States Environmental Agency, 2012). There i s further guidance, in regards to the injection of possible contaminants that may affect ground water supplies, as dictated by the process from hydraulic fracturing.Through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is authorized by the Clean Water Act, the following claim states, â€Å"industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters† (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). Until further guidance comes out of the primary study, presently occurring, there seems to be a number of statutes in place to maintain a great deal of oversight and must be used to maintain what has continued to draw an enormous amount of controversy and surely will continue throughout the course of the process.The new study is to take a look at the vastness of what water goes through, during the hydraulic fracturing process. This being the call from congress, for the EPA to utilize its resources to re ad deep into the full cycle, in which the water passes, as it is used in the extraction of oil and natural gas from the shale plays. â€Å"At the request of Congress, EPA is conducting a study to better understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water and ground water.The scope of the research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing, in regards to five primary points; the plan to study the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, an approach to the science, quality assurance ; integrity, a peer review, and the transparency of the practice† (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). The complete final report will not be made available until 2014, where it will be made public for review and comment.Before this final report makes its way to the public, the EPA has issued an official progress report and has detailed the path that the study will go, as far as, how it will attain complete unders tanding of the process that water takes through the lifespan of hydraulic fracturing. The EPA is using computer model to match the conditions, in which the water travels through hydraulic fracturing. It will be identified through hypothetical and realistic scenarios, by which water acquisition, well injection, and wastewater treatment and waste disposal stages of the water cycle are identified and given fair study and representation.All of this is being addressed as it relates to the Upper Colorado River Basin in the west and the Susquehanna River Basin in the east (US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Washington, DC, 2012). While it has been thoroughly discussed, as to the potential causes of awareness and a reason for alert, it is paramount that we discuss the hopeful answer to the issues that have been raised. There may be a possible olution, regarding the practice of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling; it may simply be an overall accept ance, until regulations can be the agreeable key to a solid outcome of this environmental squeeze on reality. Before we get to a proposed solution to the mind raking issues that have plagued this storyline, there is a cost to all of this and a place to put the responsibility on the shoulders of the bearers to this environmental struggle for clarity.With fracking, being a well spread operation and bringing with it a toll of polluted areas, such as water, air, and torn up land across the nation, we are faced with the need to not only find resolution to this growing land grievance, but we need to recognize that there must be a means of restoration to the areas effected and the costs associated, dealt with during the process. Let it be known there is a high price tag in pursuing a cleanup and hopeful reversal of the damage done by the fracturing. Methane contamination of well water poses a risk of explosion and is often addressed by removing it from water at the point of use. In Dimock, Pennsylvania, Cabot Oil ; Gas reported having spent $109,000 on methane removal systems for 14 local households in the wake of drilling-related ethane contamination of local groundwater supplies. In addition, the company spent $10,000 on new or extended vent stacks to prevent the build-up of methane gas in 17 residents’ homes.Such measures do not remove methane from groundwater supplies, but merely eliminate the immediate threat to residents’ homes† (Tony Dutzik and Elizabeth Ridlington, Frontier Group John Rumpler, Environment America Research ; Policy Center, 2012). However, water is not the only issue that is under the gun, there is also the effect that each fracking site has on the air surrounding it. The air we breathe highly contributes to the health of all those associated with residency in the area of drilling. A 2004 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document, referring to the work of a Federal roundtable on environmental cleanup technologies, estim ated the cost of air sparging at $150,000 to $350,000 per acre. Adjusting for inflation, and assuming that the extent of the seep was correctly estimated by Encana at 1. 3 acres, one could estimate the cost of the sparging operation in 2012 dollars at $248,000 to $579,000. In addition, as of May 2012, Encana and its contractors had collected more than 1,300 water samples since the seep began. Again, the cost of this sampling and testing is unknown, but could e conservatively estimated to be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Cabot Oil ; Gas, for example, incurred $700,000 in water testing expenses in the wake of concerns about groundwater contamination from a fracking well in Dimock, Pennsylvania† (Tony Dutzik and Elizabeth Ridlington, Frontier Group John Rumpler, Environment America Research ; Policy Center, 2012). In order for the companies out there that are working toward reducing the amount of pollution coming from fracking, they are looking at a high rate of dollars to keep it at a minimum. The clearance of forest land in Pennsylvania for fracking is projected to lead to increased delivery of nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, which already suffers from a vast nutrient-generated dead zone. The cost of reducing the same amount of pollution as could be generated by fracking would be approximately $1. 5 million to $4 million per year† (PennEnvironment Research ; Policy Center, 2012). It is important, not only to understand what it takes to cleanup at an actual location, but the cost incurred through repairing the lanes to the site, because of the variety equipment and how it damages the roadways. The truck traffic needed to deliver water to a single fracking well causes as much damage to local roads as nearly 3. 5 million car trips. The state of Texas has approved $40 million in funding for road repairs in the Barnett Shale region, while Pennsylvania estimated in 2010 that $265 million would be needed to repair damaged roads in the Marc ellus Shale region† (PennEnvironment Research ; Policy Center, 2012). Infrastructure is important to have an ability to get to the site and out of the site safely, however there is a cost, when it comes to the other friends of our environment. Fracking has several negative impacts on farms, including the loss of livestock due to exposure to spills of fracking wastewater, increased difficulty in obtaining water supplies for farming, and potential conflicts with organic agriculture. In Pennsylvania, the five counties with the heaviest Marcellus Shale drilling activity saw an 18. 5 percent reduction in milk production between 2007 and 2010† (PennEnvironment Research ; Policy Center, 2012). This, being only one part of the issue, we also must consider the other end of the animal kingdom, our wildlife in the wilderness. Gas operations in Wyoming have fragmented key habitat for mule deer and pronghorn, which are important draws for the state’s $340 million hunting and w ildlife watching industries. The mule deer population in one area undergoing extensive gas extraction dropped by 56 percent between 2001 and 2010† (PennEnvironment Research ; Policy Center, 2012). In this great land of ours, we are living in a generation that now must deal with a new healthcare system and be able to still afford the normal living expenses that come our way.With healthcare cost rising and now the fight for the issues that have been rising over the industrialization of our resource gathering techniques, we are at the foothills and must climb up and rise above the extraneous costs that come from this means of extraction. â€Å"Drinking water contamination:   In Dimock, Pennsylvania, permanently replacing residents’ contaminated drinking water with a new source was estimated at more than $11 million and health costs from air pollution:   in Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale region, air pollution from fracking operations impose health costs estimated at $9. million in one year. In Texas’ Barnett Shale region, those costs reach $270,000 per day during the summer smog season† (Environment America, 2012). This now seems, as though it is not going anywhere anytime soon, so where is a possible solution to this environmental peril we find ourselves in? Is there an answer? Or are we destined to sit and wait for an answer that may never come. Now, we find ourselves staring at a withering wilderness without any better days likely to come over this industrialized beat down.Now that there is a more comprehensive understanding of what fracking is all about and the impact it has on the environment directly and indirectly, through the social health issues, we must be able to curtail what is being identified as hazardous and stop it in its tracks. In order for this to occur, shouldn’t there be a means of determining the location of where the fracking fluid is mostly traveling, so we can diffuse the situation and potentially protect the surrounding regions from contamination and the spread of this devastating spiral of events.Having a way to track where the fluid travels is one of the possible solutions to keeping the public safe from the probability of causing more harm among our citizens. â€Å"Currently, there is little courts can do to determine the truth of claims that fracking contaminates waterways. One popular suggestion, proposed by many stakeholders and creative scientists, is to include some type of tracer device, such as a color or a chemical, to follow fracking fluids through the environment.This solution wouldn’t track the leaching of natural gas through old mines or fissures, but it would help companies, overseers, and policy-makers understand how chemicals flow deep underground, especially when multiple companies are drilling in one area. Such tracers would hold companies accountable to the environment, to landowners, and to stakeholders† (Lamers, 2012). The question is, w ould this continue to add to the already polluted scene, or would it meet a solution to have a better understanding, as to the route this fluid seems to take to contaminate our groundwater systems?We also may have an opportunity to set stricter laws, as to the actual location of these wells, in relation to it being positioned within residential areas. â€Å"Policies and recommendations vary widely about how close shale gas sites should be to lakes, rivers, ponds, houses, wetlands and protected areas. As many counties and states begin to lease or sell land, drill sites are beginning to cross into state or county parks and pass into or through rivers and streams† (Lamers, 2012).Having the ability to force drilling companies to be at a particular range from any residential or other protected area would be a promising solution to creating safer barriers for the general population and individual wildlife areas to be safe from the untidiness of a fracking site. While we look for th e government to come up with more legalistic approaches to this devastating thorn under the environments skin, maybe the answer is more profound and can be drawn from unique sources, rather than a traditional loom. â€Å"Most of the water used to free the gas and oil is trapped underground.But a new option is to swap water for propane gas, which is then recaptured as it escapes from the earth. Canadian company GasFrac Energy Services is already employing propane instead of water. A single fracking job can use between two million and six million gallons of water while most of that water remains underground, the fluid that does return to the surface has to be disposed of as contaminated wastewater† (Stone, 2011). Another approach is found to be one of the greenest found, to date. Not only is the amount of water being reduced, but the solution involves utilizing a biodegradable source to accomplish a safe means of eusing this product. â€Å"Houston-based oil field supplier Flot ek Industries has found another solution that replaces traditional chemicals with extract from orange peels, turning the conventional mixture of water and toxins into a biodegradable blend† (Stone, 2011). This idea opens up a whole new scheme in the desire to continue our search for self sustainment and future drilling opportunities. However, it is not the only solution to hit the community, as there has been something stirred up in the Halliburton camp with the utilization of solar panels and electricity making its way to the oil fields. Halliburton calls its two-year-old solar-powered invention the SandCastle. It has rolled out dozens of SandCastles in the U. S. By replacing diesel engines to move sand from the trailers, Halliburton estimates the devices have saved 950,000 gallons of diesel and reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 20 million pounds in the first nine months of 2012. Halliburton and the other three largest oil-field service providers spent $2. 04 billion on res earch and development in 2011, up 32 percent from two years earlier. Some of that went to finding ways to make fracking more eco-friendly.Other green-leaning players include Chesapeake Energy (CHK) and General Electric (GE), as well as oil-patch interlopers such as Verenium (VRNM), a biotech concern, and Ecologix Environmental Systems, which makes wastewater-treatment systems† (Wethe, 2012). What does all of this mean? It simply means that drilling companies are seeing the need to make changes to the way they conduct business, so as it does not interfere with our environment anymore. It means that we can no longer stand by, as residents of this great land of ours and simply be good with how they conduct their business.It means that, we the people of this beautiful landscape we call planet earth, have a voice and will be heard. It means, as long as we celebrate our land together as citizens, we have the aptitude to develop the means necessary, to guide the direction, in which w e will continue to move forward. As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, we will continue to dream of that new discovery, launching us into a new direction. We are a people of continuous change and workmanship; we will find a way forward. We’re a people that will come together and meet the need of our mother earth. References Chesapeake Energy. 2013). Hydraulic fracturing facts. Retrieved from http://www. hydraulicfracturing. com/Process/Pages/information. aspx danps, (2011, April 30). The high cost of fracking – and the movement against it. Retrieved from http://my. firedoglake. com/danps/2011/04/30/the-high-cost-of- fracking-and-the-movement-against-it/ EnergyFromShale, (2012, ). Shale gas economics: Extracting from domestic oil reserves. Retrieved from http://www. energyfromshale. org/hydraulic- fracturing/shale-gas Environment America, (2012, September 20). The costs of fracking—the true price tag of dirty energy. Retrieved from http://ecowatch. rg/2012 /costs-of-fracking/ Lamers, V. (2012, September 17). Solutions from the gas fields. Retrieved from http://sagemagazine. org/solutions-from-the-gas-fields/ Majumdar, A. , Hayes, D. J. , Perciasepe, B. , (2012, April 13). Memorandum. Retrieved from http://epa. gov/hydraulicfracture/oil_and_gas_research_mou. pdf PennEnvironment Research ; Policy Center, (2012, September 20). The costs of fracking. Retrieved from http://northcentralpa. com/feeditem/2012-09-20_costs- fracking ShaleTech Shale Training and Education Center, (1995, ). What is shale gas and why is it important?. Retrieved from http://www. shaletec. rg/whatis. htm Society of Petroleum Engineers, (2012, November 29). Hydraulic fracturing. Retrieved from http://petrowiki. org/Hydraulic_fracturing Stone, J. (2011, August 19). Green solutions to fracking debate. Retrieved from http://www. propane. pro/alternative-fuel/green-solutions-fracking-debate-0819/ Tony Dutzik and Elizabeth Ridlington, Frontier Group John Rumpler, Environm ent America Research ; Policy Center, (2012, Fall ). The costs of fracking the price tag of dirty drilling’s environmental damage. Retrieved from http://www. environmentamerica. org/sites/environment/files/reports/The Costs of Fracking vUS. pdfUnited States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, March 12). National pollutant discharge elimination system (npdes) overview. Retrieved from http://cfpub. epa. gov/npdes/ United States Environmental Agency. (2004, June ). Evaluation of impacts to underground sources of drinking water by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane reservoirs . Retrieved from http://www. epa. gov/ogwdw/uic/pdfs/cbmstudy_attach_uic_ch02_methodology. pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, May 9). Hydraulic fracturing background information. Retrieved from http://water. epa. gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulic fracturing/wells_hydrowhat. fm United States Environmental Agency, (2012, September 6). Hydraulic fracturing under the safe drinking water act. Retrieved from http://water. epa. gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/hydraulic- fracturing. cfm United States Environmental Protection Agency, (2012, February 14). Study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources: Progress report. Retrieved from http://epa. gov/hfstudy/ US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Washington, DC, (2012, December ). Study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources progress report.Retrieved from http://epa. gov/hfstudy/pdfs/hf-report20121214. pdf University of Michigan. (2012, November 29). Fracking: Researchers study potential impact on health, environment, economy. Retrieved from http://www. labspaces. net/125572/Fracking__Researchers_study_potential_impa ct_on_health__environment__economy Wethe, D. (2012, November 29). For fracking, it's getting easier being green. Retrieved from http://www. businessweek. com/articles/20 12-11-29/for-fracking-its-getting- easier-being-green WhatIsFracking, (2013, ). What is hydraulic fracturing?. Retrieved from http://www. what- is-fracking. com/what-is-hydraulic-fracturing/