Incorporating a Web-Based Hydraulic Fracturing Module in General

Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Incorporating a Web-Based Hydraulic Fracturing Module in General Chemistry as a Socio-Scientific Issue That Engages Students Christian Zowada,*,† Ozcan Gulacar,*,‡ and Ingo Eilks*,† †

Department of Biology and Chemistry, Institute for Science Education, University of Bremen, 28334 Bremen, Germany Department of Chemistry, University of California-Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616, United States

‡

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a case study that investigated students’ perceptions on the integration of a socio-scientific issue into a general chemistry course at a public university located in northwestern California. The teaching intervention is based on a digital learning environment structured by the software Prezi that students used to explore the issue of extracting unconventional crude oil and natural gas resources through hydraulic fracturing. The learning environment offered information about the chemistry of hydraulic fracturing in combination with a multiperspective view on its geoscience aspects as well as the potential risks associated with a controversial societal reception. The results show a positive perception on the inclusion of hydraulic fracturing in general chemistry education when framed in a broad picture of its potential ecological and societal impacts. The results are parallel to the findings from German high school chemistry teachers that used the same learning environment and a related approach. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Curriculum, Multimedia-Based Learning, Applications of Chemistry

■

INTRODUCTION Chemistry is a subject that is not very popular with many learners;1 it is perceived to be difficult to learn and is often overlooked in terms of immediate and future societal relevance by many students.2 Therefore, raising the relevance of learning science in general, and chemistry in particular, is a question that has been under debate for many years now.3,4 Chemistry is a field with central significance for the sustainable development of any industrialized society.5 Knowledge of chemistry is highly relevant for developing any modern society, and also essential for the participation of any responsible citizen in an increasingly techno-scientifically dominated world.6,7 However, raising the relevance of chemistry education by incorporating learning about its societal and ecological implications into high school and general chemistry education is still largely neglected in many countries and curricula.8 One way to integrate chemistry content with its societal and ecological implications is through the contextualization of chemistry in authentic, relevant, and controversial socioscientific issues (SSIs).9 Controversial SSIs can challenge students to discuss the applications of science and technology.10 Students must understand the scientific background of the issues to participate in corresponding debates in an informed way,11 which then gives them a chance to develop their critical thinking skills.12 One controversial SSI with a close relationship to chemistry is hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a technology used to extract unconventional resources of crude oil and natural gas, specifically when oil and gas do not migrate to extractable © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

reservoirs but remain embedded in stone, for example, shale gas. In this paper, we discuss the topic of hydraulic fracturing as a suitable SSI for chemistry education. A lesson plan is presented on how hydraulic fracturing can be incorporated into a general chemistry course. The lesson is based on a multimedia learning environment structured by the software Prezi. A case is then presented about how students perceived the incorporation of the issue of hydraulic fracturing into a general chemistry course in the USA.

■

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (FRACKING) AND ITS ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS

The Technology and Its Potential

Fracking is a technical process for fracturing rocks that contain crude oil or natural gas using a hydraulic medium, called the fracturing fluid. The aim is to extract crude oil or natural gas from unconventional deposits.13 In 1949, Halliburton performed the first commercial application of fracking.14 Hydraulic fracturing starts, as does the conventional extraction of oil and gas, with drilling into the corresponding geological compartment. In conventional reservoirs, the rock is permeable to the natural gas or oil and large quantities of these resources accumulate under layers that are impermeable to oil and gas. In the case of unconventional deposits, natural gas or Received: August 10, 2017 Revised: December 6, 2017

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00613 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

fracturing. A study reported to the European Commission19 concluded that shale gas has a higher carbon footprint than conventional natural gas, but is better than coal. Even though there is no strong evidence linking fracking to earthquakes or groundwater pollution, its indirect influence on climate change seems to be clear. A large-scale extraction of oil and gas by hydraulic fracturing raises the availability of fossil resources and decreases the prices, which in turn lessen the pressure to change to renewable energies. Increased use of hydraulic fracturing will mostly contribute to the increase of the overall emissions of carbon dioxide and thus promote climate change.

oil is more dispersed. The rock is not permeable and thus does not allow the natural gas or oil to diffuse and accumulate. In the process of fracking, the rock containing gas and oil is physically cracked. A fracking liquid containing mostly water is pumped into the rock with up to 750 bar of pressure to break the impermeable rock and release crude oil or natural gas or both. Proppants in the fracking liquid keep the resulting fissures in the rock open. Other important parts of the fracturing fluid are gelling agents, which ensure that the proppants are held in the liquid, and breakers, which help keep the fracking fluid in a liquid state so that it can be pumped upward more easily after the fracking is completed (the so-called flowback). Other components of the fluid include alcohols or biocides. In Germany, the composition of a fracturing fluid can be found online to inform the public. One such example is partly given in Table 1.15

USA and Germany: Two Countries, Two Views

The public debate and the political situation about fracking are different from country to country. Hydraulic fracturing is intensively discussed in public media in both the USA20 and Germany.21 Even experts are not united in an opinion for or against hydraulic fracturing.22 Politically, the USA and Germany are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The political debate over fracking was a prevalent issue in the 2016 USA presidential election as the candidates took opposing views on the issue. The focus of the debate was determining whether the economic benefits of fracking outweigh the environmental costs. The most noted environmental costs include the risk of earthquakes, threats to drinking water, climate change, and radiation exposure from fracking wells. On the contrary, in the USA the most noted support for the economic benefits of fracking is that hydraulic fracturing wells produce more than two-thirds of the total natural gas output.23 Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders appeared to have the same views on fracking.24 Clinton stated that she is against the practice if it is banned by the state, if the company practicing it does not disclose all of the chemicals involved, and if the practice affects drinking water. Similarly, Sanders did not waver in being strongly opposed to fracking, stating that its environmental drawbacks are too significant to even consider fracking. The majority of Republican candidates were strongly in favor of hydraulic fracturing citing economic benefits as sufficient reason for the continuation of the practice.24 Notably, while President Trump is in favor of fracking, he believes that voters should have a significant voice in its regulation.25 Over the past few years, fracking has been a source of great success for the nation’s crude oil producers; however, it has also sparked tension with oil-run countries such as Saudi Arabia. All of these components shed some light on why the controversy has been so prevailing. As the debate on hydraulic fracturing has garnered more of the national and global spotlight, more and more Americans are forming opinions and taking stances on the issue. According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans opposed to fracking have grown from 41% in 2015 to 50% in 2016.26 In addition, the percentage of the population who claimed no opinion on fracking decreased from 19% in 2014 to 13% in 2015.26 This phenomenon reflects the increase in media time spent covering the fracking debate. Many professionals also claim that it reflects Americans’ desire to turn to more renewable energy sources.27 American citizens and politicians are not alone in having opposing opinions about hydraulic fracturing; many scientists/ environmentalists differ in viewpoints as well. Donald Siegel, chairman of the Earth Sciences Department at Syracuse University, claims that methane concentration in water wells (contamination) is unrelated to nearby oil and gas wells. In his

Table 1. Example of Components for a Fracturing Fluid Used in Germany (Total Volume: 4,063,178 kg)15 Component

Function

Amount [kg]

Water Methanol Ammonium peroxodisulfate Sodium bromate Magnesium chloride Acetic acid

Vehicle Surface-active agent Breaker Breaker Biocide Stabilizing agent

3,207,250 2,864 584 1,036 8 657

The potential amount of gas that can be extracted using the fracking method varies from country to country. For example, extracting natural gas from shale gas has a potential of about 23.4 trillion m3 in the USA,16 whereas in Germany, this amount is estimated to be only in the range 320−2030 billion m3.17 Suggested Ecological Risks

In the debates surrounding fracking, there exist three main critical issues concerning ecological risks: earthquakes, groundwater pollution, and climate change. So far, there is no direct proof that fracking instigates earthquakes. Exxon Mobil acknowledges that fracking can lead to small vibrations in the ground but considers the input of energy insufficient to generate perceptible earthquakes.15 However, in the public media, there are many reports from residents living near fracking drills saying that they have felt earthquakes. In Germany’s case, a recent study by the Federal Institute for Geology and Resources concludes that “For large areas of Germany, ..., earthquakes caused by fracking are unlikely” (ref 17, p175, translated). However, a broad databased and comprehensive analysis of regional spots with fracking drills does not exist. Groundwater contamination is another potential risk which may result from fracking. Some components of the fracturing fluid are toxic and environmentally hazardous. The flowback also contains geogenic substances, resulting from geological processes inside the earth, such as salts, metals in various oxidation states, radioactive substances like radium, or organic substances like benzene.18 The fracking process generally takes place deeper than the groundwater layer, but contamination risks may materialize if the technology is not operated correctly or if flowback is not treated and disposed in a proper way. Although conventional natural gas was suggested to be more advantageous than coal or oil in the carbon footprint,15 it is not clear whether this is also true for gas extracted by hydraulic B



Article

play, which was meant to stimulate real-life discussions about the topic by incorporating a variety of different positions. Individually or in pairs, the students explored the learning environment by learning about fracking from chemical and geological points of view. They also considered the controversy about hydraulic fracturing by identifying different opinions and arguments in the embedded media. The learning environment is constructed like an open platform with six areas starting with an introduction followed by an overview. In the overview, students find general information about hydraulic fracturing and develop potential questions about the topic. Afterward, the geological basics and the technology are explained. This process begins with the deposits and how to find them, followed by information about drilling and extraction, and finishes with issues of the disposal of the flowback. The chemistry of hydraulic fracturing fluids and the functions of its different components are then explained. Also, newer research on nonhazardous fracturing fluid is presented. Furthermore, different opinions are given on fracking as well as economic aspects. Finally, the last section provides sample arguments for and against the potential ecological risks, namely, earthquakes, groundwater contamination, water demand, radioactivity, and effects on climate change. With Prezi, it is possible to arrange information in nonlinear ways and on different layers to allow the students to identify their own learning paces and decide the depth of information they are looking for.32 It is important that students can move freely across the whole Prezi, deepening on aspects they would like to know or to fulfill their task. If a student is interested in how the resources are found, he or she can start at area “Geological Basics and Technology” and then investigate deeper by turning to “Deposits”. In this section, there are four options to learn more about “How mineral oil and natural gas are found”. Figure 1 is an example from the last section where potential ecological risks are explained. In this instance, the topic is earthquakes. First, there is general information on the topic. On the left, there are arguments against the occurrence of earthquakes by Exxon Mobil and the Federal Environmental

paper, he discredits claims that fracking contaminates water wells.28 On the contrary, Professor Avner Vengosh, a specialist in geochemistry and water quality as well as chair of the Water and Air Resource Program at Duke University, strongly disagrees. Professor Vengosh expressed concerns about fracking claiming that the risks are too high as many of the environmental consequences are still unknown.29 The situation in Germany is different: According to its government’s statements, Germany has one of the strictest laws in the world toward hydraulic fracturing with a general moratorium on the industrial use of fracking until 2021. In 2021, the parliament can decide to maintain the moratorium or to continue hydraulic fracturing. However, there is hardly any public debate with tendencies to lean toward starting fracking and moving into industrial extraction. Until 2021, only four drillings can be allowed for research purposes by the corresponding authorities, but only in agreement with the corresponding federal state.30 So far, no German state has agreed to allow fracking drills on their grounds. The debate over whether to continue practicing hydraulic fracturing or not has been and will continue to be a significant environmental issue in the USA, Germany, and the rest of the world.

■

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND CHEMISTRY EDUCATION Hydraulic fracturing is a suitable and challenging SSI for science education. Taking the criteria suggested by Stolz et al.9 into account helps to see that there is (I) an authentic debate in the public media; (II) the topic is relevant because there are political and economic decisions pertaining to the issue; (III) decisions on using hydraulic fracturing are open to intense discussions; (IV) different points of view exist in public debate and the media; and (V) arguments concerning science and technology are included in the debate. On the basis of these claims, a multimedia learning environment was structured for German high school and an undergraduate chemistry course in the USA.31 Created in Germany, the learning environment was structured with the Prezi, presentation software, which proved to be suitable to easily create networked learning environments that could incorporate different types of media. Prezi is like an open platform on which frames are added to present a combination of different content forms such as text, audio, images, and animations in an effective way. The viewer can switch between the frames by zooming in and out and can decide on their own what they want to read.32 For use in the USA, the learning environment was translated into English. Parts with specific information on the situation in Germany and media in German were replaced by corresponding resources from the USA. The digital learning environment is accessible via prezi.com.33 The overall aim of the lesson plan is to facilitate self-directed, autonomous learning in a digital environment that allows the students to participate in a role-playing activity that contrasts different points of view on hydraulic fracturing. In the lesson, the students were first introduced to the controversy about hydraulic fracturing through media excerpts.34 After the introduction, the students were divided into groups representing politicians, scientists, environmental activists, and representatives of a fracking company. The role play allowed students to develop certain foci and prevented them from losing track of the learning environment. The aim of each role was to represent and justify a certain position later in the role

Figure 1. First example of the content of the learning environment. C



Article

Figure 2. Second example of the content of the learning environment.

Figure 3. Students’ perceptions of fracking and the potential to enrich the curricula (n = 842).

of the frame is an overview of the different hazard categories of the ingredients, which allows the learner to get a better understanding of fracturing fluid. Each section has six different frames. The first frame of a section provides an overview of the content while the last frame summarizes the prior frames. Figure 2 shows an example of a frame with more information and details on the chemical aspect of fracking.

Agency in Germany. The other side presents arguments for the occurrence of earthquakes from places like the University of Oklahoma, which claims that earthquakes are probably caused by pressing the flowback into the earth during fracking. Again, in Germany, citizens described that they felt earthquakes near hydraulic fracturing drillings. Figure 2 describes an example of a fracturing fluid from the drilling “Cappeln Z3a” in Northern Germany. On the right side D



■

Article

A CASE STUDY ON TEACHING ABOUT FRACTURING IN A GENERAL CHEMISTRY COURSE After applying the lesson plan in a general chemistry course for undergraduate chemistry students at a public research university in the northwest of California during the Winter 2017 quarter, a feedback questionnaire with 12 Likert-items (4 step) as well as two open questions and one rating scale (from 1 to 10) was administered. The students were volunteers from two large sections of the general chemistry course. Of the 888 students enrolled in the course, 842 (m = 263; f = 579) chose to complete the whole learning activity and take the perception questionnaire. The learning activity was carried out in discussion sessions with smaller sections of 24 students. The study took 1 week to complete with multiple sections running each day. Upon arrival in discussion sessions, students were first assigned their roles and asked to explore the Prezi learning environment on their own. After they were familiarized with the content, several groups of four were formed, each consisting of one student per role. The students were then asked to discuss the information on hydraulic fracturing taken from the Prezi from the viewpoint of the role they had assumed, which allowed the entire group to hear different opinions on the issue. Following the discussion, each group member reflected on what had just taken place, which allowed them to decide how they felt about the issue and whose opinion they agreed with the most. The learning activity ended with students’ completion of the questionnaire. The lesson plan can take anywhere from 80 to 180 min depending on how much time the students are given to explore and study the learning environment. Figure 3 provides the students’ feedback. The majority of the students (65%) mostly or fully agreed that they enjoyed learning about hydraulic fracturing, with about 30% of students partially agreeing that they enjoyed the experience. After the lesson, most of the students (agree and agree mostly 72%) realized how complex a decision regarding science and technology in a case like hydraulic fracturing can be. Even more students (fully and mostly agree 76.5%) agreed that this lesson plan is a good way to learn how society generally deals with chemical issues. Although the political decision seems settled in the USA, most of the students (70%) thought that it is still important to discuss hydraulic fracturing. Only 30% of the students, however, agreed or agreed mostly that learning about topics like fracking motivated them to learn about chemistry more in depth. When asked if fracking is a topic which should be discussed in school 47.5% of the students agreed or mostly agreed. Most of the students thought that hydraulic fracturing is relevant to their lives (82%), but only a group of students (38%) agreed or agreed mostly that fracking should be part of the chemistry curriculum. The students took a very similar stance when asked about incorporating more controversial topics in general chemistry courses, with 40% fully or mostly agreeing with the concept. So, the students identify that this topic has relevance for themselves, but meanwhile, more than the half would not integrate it into a chemistry curriculum. It is very interesting that the learning environment seemed to make most students (73%) more sensitive to hydraulic fracturing. Slightly more than half (55%) said that hydraulic fracturing is an interesting topic to them, with another 40% partially agreeing with the statement. So there is a general mismatch in the appreciation of the topic as such and its integration in chemistry education. A potential reason might

be that the view of the students regarding what chemistry education in general is about might be quite restricted to understanding chemistry as an academic discipline and not as a field with a lot of technological and societal implications. The students were also asked to rate on a scale from 1 (very strong) to 10 (very weak) how much the topic of hydraulic fracturing enriches the curriculum in their course of studies. The ratings were varied widely with a mean value of 5.13 and a standard deviation of 2.06 (n = 863 students). Afterward, the students were asked for the rationale behind their decision. Some students who gave a ranking of 1 were very enthusiastic (Table 2, left column), while even the students who gave a ranking of 10 seemed to note the topic’s importance (Table 2, right column). If we compare the answers from the Likert questions and the open-ended questions, we may find an answer to the lack of interest among the students to see issues like this to be integrated into the general chemistry curriculum. The general chemistry course followed a structure-of-the-discipline approach, and the issue of fracking was not fully integrated into the course of the curriculum. The students might have seen the teaching about fracking as not connected to the learning of chemical theory and might also not have considered it to be relevant for the exam. Additionally, a quiz with a pre- and post-test design containing 15 items (13 multiple choice and 2 true−false questions) was used. There were 857 students who participated in the pretest (M = 6.58, SD = 2.17) and 891 who participated in the post-test (M = 11.78, SD = 2.53). Before running a paired t test, the scores (34) for the students who had not taken the pretest were removed from the pool. The t test (t (857) = −46.41, p < 0.001) analysis shows a highly significant change in the mean score of the students. It is safe to assume that students learned a significant amount of information about fracking in a short period of time from the lesson. The Prezi learning module seems to work as an effective learning tool for college students for the topic of fracking.

■

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Hydraulic fracturing is a topic that can be used to connect high school and undergraduate chemistry curricula with a socially, economically, and ecologically relevant socio-scientific issue (SSI). From our results, it seems that most of the students who participated perceived the lesson plan as relevant and interesting. A more societal contextualization of the chemistry curriculum seems to have the potential to provide students with views on chemistry going beyond traditional chemical content. Similar results were described when the lesson plan was applied in a very similar form in German high school chemistry classes.31 Further discussion is required to identify content and context in the introductory chemistry courses that can potentially be connected to authentic and relevant SSIs and to evaluate the full potential of such implementations, which might promote motivation, interest, and general educational skills.

■

LIMITATIONS

This case was conducted only at one public research university in the USA, specifically in a state where hydraulic fracturing is operated at relatively lower rates compared to other states such as Texas and Pennsylvania. It is possible that the reception will be different in the states where hydraulic fracturing is operated E


Article

on a large scale. Further research may also reveal the overall attitude changes in the course, explain the variations in the perception of the students, and determine the learning gains concerning the chemistry content.

“Because this topic does not interest me and it does not have any direct connection to acid and base titrations which is what we are studying right now. I do find this something that might need to be looked at but at this time in my life it does not affect me that much.”

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Authors

*E-mail: [email protected]. *E-mail: [email protected]. *E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Christian Zowada: 0000-0002-0522-464X Ozcan Gulacar: 0000-0001-7709-0524 Ingo Eilks: 0000-0003-0453-4491 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

REFERENCES

n = 863.

(1) Osborne, J.; Dillon, J. Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections; The Nuffield Foundation: London, 2008. (2) Jenkins, E. W.; Nelson, N. W. Important but not for me: studentś attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2005, 23 (1), 41−57. (3) Stuckey, M.; Hofstein, A.; Mamlok-Naaman, R.; Eilks, I. The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2013, 49 (1), 1−34. (4) Relevant Chemistry EducationFrom Theory to Pratice; Eilks, I., Hofstein, A., Eds.; Sense: Rotterdam, 2015. (5) Matlin, S. A.; Mehta, G.; Hopf, H.; Krief, A. The role of chemistry in inventing a sustainable future. Nat. Chem. 2015, 7, 941−943. (6) Roth, W.-M.; Lee, S. Science Education as/for Participation in the Community. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 263−291. (7) Elmose, S.; Roth, W.-M. Allgemeinbildung: readiness for living in risk society. J. Curriculum Stud. 2005, 37 (1), 11−34. (8) Hofstein, A.; Eilks, I.; Bybee, R. Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education − a pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in Israel, Germany and the USA. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2011, 9, 1459−1483. (9) Stolz, M.; Witteck, T.; Marks, R.; Eilks, I. Reflecting SocioScientific Issues for Science Education coming from the Case of Curriculum Development on Doping in Chemistry Education. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2013, 9 (4), 361−370. (10) Sadler, T. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41 (5), 513−536. (11) Feierabend, T.; Eilks, I. Teaching the societal dimension of chemistry using a socio-critical, problem-oriented lesson plan based on bioethanol usage. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1250−1256. (12) Zeidler, D. L.; Nichols, B. H. Socioscientific Issues: Theory and Practice. J. Elem. Sci. Educ. 2009, 21 (2), 49−58. (13) Beckwith, R. Hydraulic Fracturing − the fuss, the facts, the future. JPT, J. Pet. Technol. 2010, 62, 34−40. (14) Montgomery, C. T.; Smith, M. B. Hydraulic Fracturing − History of an enduring technology. JPT, J. Pet. Technol. 2010, 62, 26− 32. (15) Exxon Mobil. Erdgassuche in Deutschland. 2017. http://www. erdgas-aus-deutschland.de/ (accessed Nov 2017)). (16) U.S. Energy Information Administration. Chapter 9: Oil and Gas Supply Module. 2017. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ assumptions/pdf/oilgas.pdf (accessed Nov 2017). (17) Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR). Schieferöle und Schiefergas in DeutschlandPotentiale und Umweltaspekte. 2016.https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Energie/ Downloads/Abschlussbericht_13MB_Schieferoelgaspotenzial_ Deutschland_2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5 (accessed Nov 2017).

a

Very Weak (Ranked 10) Middle (Ranked 5)

“I believe that the discussion surrounding topics such as fracking allows us to see practical applications from chemistry. [...] I find that this type of issue should be addressed in a different forum that allows students to engage more thoroughly on the topic [...] But ultimately, I do think that more people started to think about fracking than would previously have absent the extra credit incentive. [...]” “[...] being aware of the issues that the we face in the environment is very important. [...] fracking has a major affect on climate change, and this is a huge issue in politics and science today. Because the environment belongs to all of us, it is our duty to do our part to protect it [...]. [...] I could possibly use chemistry to understand the components of fracking and the chemical uses.”

Very Strong (Ranked 1)

“I have heard about fracking before [...] but now since I know more about it I feel that as a student studying chemistry I should be able to be able to look into this more and develop an educated opinion [...] I feel that is it my duty as a student of the academic sciences to contribute an opinion on this matter.” “Fracking is directly related to my major, Chemical Engineering. [...] Its controversial nature especially enforces fracking as a relevant topic for an aspiring ChemE like myself to learn about. Thus, learning about fracking enriches the curriculum in my course of study.”

Table 2. Quotes from the Open Questions To Show Different Opinionsa

“The issue of fracking does not directly enrich my education. Although it is good to be educated on the subject and to know what is happening. However, fracking is a very important issue and I think something should be done about it.”


F



Article

(18) Frimmel, F. H.; Ewers, U.; Schmitt-Jansen, M.; Gordalla, B.; Altenburger, R. Toxikologische Bewertung von Fracking-Fluiden. Wasser und Abfall 2012, 6, 22−29. (19) Forster, D.; Perks, J. Climate impact of potential shale gas production in the EU. 2012. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/ files/eccp/docs/120815_final_report_en.pdf (accessed Nov 2017). (20) McGrath, M. Thousands of spills at US and gas fracking sites. 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748 (accessed Nov 2017). (21) Seidler, C.; Kasten, F. NRW untersagt Wintershall-Fracking. Spiegel.de 2017. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/ fracking-nrw-untersagt-wintershall-die-erdgassuche-a-1133076.html (accessed Nov 2017). (22) Howarth, R. W.; Ingraffea, A.; Engelder, T. Natural gas: Should fracking stop? Nature 2011, 477, 271−275. (23) Perrin, J.; Cook, T. Hydraulically Fractured Wells Provide Twothirds of U.S. Natural Gas Production. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2016. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail. php?id=26112 (accessed Nov 2017). (24) Qiu, L. Does Hillary Clinton support fracking?. 2016. http:// www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/13/bernie-s/ does-hillary-clinton-support-fracking/ (accessed Nov 2017). (25) Adler, B. Trump disagrees with fellow Republicans on local fracking bans. 2016. http://grist.org/election-2016/trump-disagreeswith-his-fellow-republicans-on-fracking/ (accessed Nov 2017). (26) Swift, A. Opposition to Fracking Mounts in the U.S. Gallup Poll Social Series; 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190355/oppositionfracking-mounts.aspx (accessed Nov 2017). (27) Boudet, H.; Clarke, C.; Bugden, D.; Maibach, E.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Leiserowitz, A. Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 2014, 65, 57−67. (28) Siegel, D. I.; Azzolina, N. A.; Smith, B. J.; Perry, A. E.; Bothun, R. L. Methane Concentrations in Water Wells Unrelated to Proximity to Existing Oil and Gas Wells in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (7), 4106−4112. (29) Osborn, S. G.; Vengosh, A.; Warner, N. R.; Jackson, R. B. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2011, 108 (20), 8172−8176. (30) Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung.). Eines der strengsten Fracking-Gesetze weltweit. 2016. https://www. bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2015/04/2015-04-01fracking-gesetz-kabinett.html (accessed Nov 2017). (31) Zowada, C.; Eilks, I. Fracking: ein kontroverses Thema für den fächerübergreifenden Chemieunterricht multimedial umgesetzt. MNU Journal 2018, accepted for publication. (32) Krause, M.; Eilks, I. Innovating chemistry learning with PREZI. Chemistry in Action 2014, 104 (Winter), 19−25. (33) Zowada, C.; Gulacar, O.; Eilks, I. Digital Learning Environment on Hydraulic Fracturing. 2017. http://prezi.com/-sotonrf3f32/ (accessed Nov 2017).

G


Incorporating a Web-Based Hydraulic Fracturing Module in General

Recommend Documents